PTP Digest 2003/09/30-A - CONTENTS

* Salt Lake: TRAX LRT Medical Center extension opens
   Deseret News Tuesday, September 30, 2003

* Denver suburb candidates embrace LRT plans
   Denver Post Sunday, September 28, 2003

* Sacramento: Neighborhood applaud LRT sound wall
   Sacramento Bee  Monday, September 29, 2003

* Spokane: LRT plans muddled as 'BRT', DMU, streetcar eyed
   Spokane Spokesman-Review Saturday, September 27, 2003

* Houston: Rail critics say rail transit failed in past
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 29, 2003

* Houston: Letters respond to rail opponents
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 29, 2003

* Beijng-Shanghai: Rail, not maglev, chosen for high-speed line
   People's Daily Online Sunday, September 28, 2003

* Europe: Chunnel train now even faster
   Seattle Times  Sunday, September 28, 2003

* Seattle: Sen Patty Murray fights for Amtrak
   Seattle Times Monday, September 29, 2003

* Seattle: Ferries overloaded as service is cut
   Seattle Times Sunday, September 28, 2003

* Ed: US gas thirst must be curbed
   The Daily Herald - Everett, Wash. September 29, 2003


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

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,515035405,00.html

Deseret News
Tuesday, September 30, 2003

UTA extends TRAX line to U. med center

By Geoffrey Fattah


UTA formally opened its TRAX extension to the U. Health Sciences
Center Monday with a "ribbon-breaking."
Keith Johnson, Deseret Morning News

Deseret Morning News

For University of Utah medical student Wesley Mortensen, the new TRAX
line to the U. Health Sciences Center could make him smarter and a
better father. It might even make him a better husband.

"I've spent 1,100 hours on either TRAX or a bus," Wesley said Monday.
"That's nearly 47 days . . . or 550 movies, or 220 18-hole rounds of golf."
With a wife and kids in Sandy, Wesley said making good use of his time is
important and time spent aboard TRAX is time well spent. Wesley said he
can study his medical science or talk to his wife and little ones on his cell
phone â€" safely.Wesley and a crowd of several hundred transit
supporters gathered near Primary Children's Medical Center for the official
opening of the new TRAX Medical Center line. The 1.5-mile, $89.4 million
line was completed 15 months ahead of schedule, giving UTA officials
special bragging rights. UTA estimates the new light-rail extension will
service some 3,000 new riders right off the bat.
"I hope to see this kind of crowd at the station every day," UTA general
manager John inglish said as he stood at the new Medical Center station.
Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson joined inglish in predicting a new
"renaissance" of mass transit in Utah and across the nation.
Inglish predicted transit projects will sweep across U.S. cities in the next
50 years.
"They're all looking at Salt Lake City," Anderson said.
At the turn of the last century, the mayor pointed out, Salt Lake City had
some 156 miles of trolley track, which was ripped out after a "consortium
of automobile and tire companies" bought and removed the transit system
to make way for wider streets.
Yet transit projects are only possible with federal transit funding.
"We have a tough fight ahead of us" in Washington, said Rep. Jim
Matheson, D-Utah, who criticized the current Bush administration for its
efforts to limit federal funding for transit projects to a 50-percent match.
The federal government offered to pay 60 percent of the cost to build the
Health Sciences Center TRAX extension.


U. Medical Center employee Matthew Brown rides the new TRAX line
past Rice-Eccles Stadium on his way to work Monday.
Keith Johnson, Deseret Morning News


University of Utah president Bernard Machen urged students to refrain
from jaywalking near TRAX rails and for motorists to observe the new
traffic signs.
As students break in the new line, UTA officials are turning their eyes to
future projects.
"We have a lot on our mind right now," said UTA director of transit
development Mike Allegra.
On the radar screen is the future construction of a commuter rail network
from Salt Lake County to Davis and Utah counties as well as TRAX spurs
to West Jordan, West Valley City and Draper.
Within a year, Allegra said, written plans should be complete to extend
TRAX from the Delta Center to the Salt Lake intermodal terminal near the
Gateway. The terminal will not only cater to TRAX and UTA buses, but to
Amtrak trains, local taxi cabs and Greyhound buses.
Allegra said the Davis County commuter rail system is planned for
operation by 2007. No dates have been set for additional TRAX lines as
funding has not come through, he said.

E-MAIL: gfattah@desnews.com



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

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1661897,00.html#

Denver Post
Sunday, September 28, 2003

T-REX figures in Greenwood Village's plans

By George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 28, 2003 - The promise and problems associated
with T-REX, the light-rail and highway expansion project on interstates 25
and 225, weigh heavily on the Nov. 4 elections in Greenwood Village.

The city has largely avoided shrinking revenues that have affected other
municipalities. Traffic congestion, speeding on side streets and coming
light rail are the city's top priority, candidates say.

"We are really into light rail," City Council candidate Ronald Rakowsky
said, noting that four stations will be built in or near the city. "What we
develop with that now will affect this community for the next 50 years."

Council candidate Michael Logan said that in the meantime, something
should be done to stop drivers from speeding down side streets. "We
need to take steps to manage traffic in our neighborhoods," Logan said.
"There are a lot of ways to do that, whether it is increased police
enforcement or installing humps or traffic circles."

Meg Froelich - also running for City Council - said, "For me, it is about
quality of life."

"We need to look at growth and the aesthetics of growth. We are really
lucky we live in one of the greatest slices of the greatest state, and we
should maintain that."

Nancy Sharpe, who is unopposed for mayor, said light-rail stations that
are coming with the completion of the Transportation Expansion Project,
or T-REX, will have a huge impact on the city. "It will be a key part of our
growth," Sharpe said. "There is a lot of land open for development, and
we need to make sure we do that right."

Another City Council candidate, Karen Blilie, said building a city center is
a major goal. "We have big plans to put a premier city center near the
Arapahoe park- n-Ride," Blilie said. "We are well past the conceptual
phase of that."

Anne ingebretsen, David Kerber, Gary Kleeman, Gregg McReynolds and
David Phifer also are running for City Council.



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

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7505284p-8447327c.html

Sacramento Bee
Monday, September 29, 2003

Back-seat driver: Activist, neighbors grateful for walled-off light rail

By Tony Bizjak -- Bee Staff Writer


There is a plaque on a masonry wall at the end of a short street in the
Land Park area. It reads: "THE GREG SLOCUM WALL. Thank you, Sloat
Way residents."

The story behind that plaque deserves telling this week -- as transit
officials open their new south light-rail line and advertise how well they
worked with residents of the area.

Greg Slocum is a soft-spoken 55-year-old state civil engineer who lives in
a modest home on a residential stretch of Freeport Boulevard. His back
yard is a rose garden he designed in honor of his late father, a rosarian.
The garden is crossed by a meandering mossy path and framed by Italian
cypress trees. It's a good spot for Slocum to sit and think.

As of Friday, the back of his yard also was on the right-of-way for
Sacramento Regional Transit's new south area light-rail line, running from
downtown to Meadowview.

Slocum first heard seven years ago that RT planned to run light rail
behind his house.

"My first reaction was, "Great!' " he said. "But I was naive. I assumed they
understood the noise and visual impacts and would want to be good
neighbors."

Although the light-rail trains would run every 7 1/2 minutes and the tracks
would be atop a mound, giving riders a close-up view of back yards, RT
had no plans for sound walls or sight barriers.

Slocum and neighbors formed a group, Community for Responsible Light
Rail, and lobbied for a masonry wall.

Slocum showed photographs of the light-rail line in east Sacramento.
There, some residents had put up warped sheets of plywood and plastic
tarps between their yards and the light-rail line.

"It looked like a slum," he said. "People were basically just defending their
privacy."

But RT had never built sound walls next to residences on the original light-
rail line, and officials didn't want to start facing that expense.

So Slocum's group hired an attorney and a noise expert to conduct
studies.

The members took their grievance to the federal government, which held
the purse strings for the project.

About then, RT had a change of heart. Officials decided they would put in
about five miles of sound walls on the south line, at a cost of several
million dollars.

Now, RT is going back and placing sound walls along the original 1987
line.

City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond, who joined the RT board as
Slocum's group was making its case, said board members decided it was
the right thing to do.

She recalls talking on a cell phone downtown with fellow board member
illa Collin when a light-rail train came by:

"I couldn't hear," Hammond recalled. "illa said, 'That does it for me.' I said,
'That does it for me, too.' "

Current RT board member Roger Dickinson doesn't like the sound walls,
however.

"I don't feel they are very attractive," he said. "They isolate the
transportation corridor from the surrounding community, and they add cost
to the project," which is detrimental "when you are trying to compete for
scarce public dollars."

Sitting in his back yard last week, Slocum looked up as a light-rail train
zipped by, its roof just visible behind the 11-foot wall. The train blew its
horn -- muffled somewhat by the wall -- as it passed.

Slocum says he is grateful to RT.

"They did a great job," he said.

He is growing ivy on the wall to soften its harsh gray facade. He even likes
that he can see the top of the trains going by. "it's fun," he said.

The plaque is another matter. It came as a surprise. He's partly
embarrassed.

"A lot of people worked on this, not just me."

But it also gives him a sense of vindication.

"People are happy with the wall," he said.



About the Writer

Trapped in traffic? Airline lose your luggage? The Back-seat Driver is
listening. E-mail your transportation nightmares to backseat@sacbee.com
or call The Bee's Tony Bizjak at (916) 321-1059.



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

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=092703&ID=s1416784&c
at=section.transportation

Spokane Spokesman-Review
Saturday, September 27, 2003


Commentary

Light rail chugs forward; don't roll your eyes


Richard Wiens - The Spokesman-Review

A lot of people rolled their eyes when the Spokane Transit Authority
began studying the possibility of a light-rail system here. We're just not big
enough, they said.

Some $4.6 million later, their skepticism was reinforced in March when a
survey of current STA bus riders showed that about 5,000 people a day
would use light rail -- probably not enough to impress the Federal Transit
Administration, which would be expected to pay about 60 percent of the
construction costs. Surely, the critics said, this was now a dead issue,
right?

Wrong. Local and federal transportation officials are convinced the
Spokane region needs, and will have, a high-capacity transit system. If
we're too small for that, so are many of the 100 similar-sized metropolitan
areas that are seeking federal funds for such systems.

Richard Krochalis knows what's going on in Spokane. He knows that in
the short term the STA may have to actually cut its current bus service
because of a budget crunch. But the FTA's regional administrator, a key
figure when it comes to procuring federal money for transportation, still
thinks an expanded transit system will be built here eventually because:

•The region will contain a half-million people within 20 years.

•Many residents here can't afford to drive a car.

•A relatively poor area such as Spokane can't afford not to invest in transit
because it's essential for economic development.

While some local residents were writing off Spokane's chances after the
ridership survey setback, members of the STA's Light Rail Steering
Committee barely missed a beat. If the original proposal for a 16-mile
light-rail line from downtown to Liberty Lake wouldn't fly, they asked, what
would?

More eye-rolling followed, as yet another contingent of local officials flew
off to Portland to view that city's rail system, and the STA decided to
spend another $2 million-plus -- 80 percent of it from the federal
government -- to further study Spokane's transit needs.

Two new proposals are in the works, and the STA will likely settle on one
of them next summer. One involves a shorter route for either electrified
trains or more economical diesel trains between downtown and Spokane
Valley's University City shopping center. A far-cheaper alternative called
bus rapid transit involves a new breed of buses running between
downtown and Liberty Lake.

Bus rapid transit would emulate the light-rail experience. In general, low-
floor, articulated buses stop at raised-platform stations about a mile apart,
travel on special lanes of existing streets and have control over traffic
signals to reduce travel time. Pittsburgh, Miami and Charlotte, N.C.,
already use such systems, and Eugene, Ore., is getting ready to establish
one.

True, they're still buses. But let's face it: Many of us won't get out of our
cars no matter what kind of mass transit is offered.

Someday, an east-west light-rail line may run from Spokane international
Airport to Coeur d'Alene, connecting with a north-south line that follows
the planned North Spokane Freeway. Those lines could also interface
with a network of streetcars on rails that might be built much sooner to
serve downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The downtown streetcar
concept is being studied now.

if it's an efficient, practical system, everyone will benefit from cleaner air
and less traffic congestion -- transit riders and non-riders.

Bus rapid transit could be a vital first step toward establishing a
downtown-Liberty Lake transit route that might someday serve light rail. A
permanent mass-transit corridor would be guaranteed, with a resulting
boost in development along the line.

Potential ridership is only one of the criteria the federal government uses
to decide which cities get transit dollars, Krochalis said. Another big one is
the economic development that a project might spur.

Light Rail Steering Committee members aren't the only local residents
thinking about Spokane's transit potential. For everyone who questions
the studies, said member Phyllis Holmes, there's someone else who asks,
"What are we waiting for? Let's build it."


• Richard Wiens is the former government editor of The Spokesman-
Review. His column appears on Saturdays.



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

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/metropolitan/2126106

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 29, 2003

From mule car to light rail, city linked by mass transit

By LUCAS WALL

Mass transit started here with a mule-drawn streetcar that entered service
April 8, 1868, on a 1 1/2-mile route along McKinney.

"We were very much pleased with the ride and with the delightful view of
the outskirts of the city," one reporter invited aboard the inaugural trip
observed in the Houston Daily Telegraph. "One has no idea how rapidly
Houston is being built up."

At the time, Houston had a population of 9,000 and the city limits covered
9 square miles. Houston now boasts a population of 2 million -- the
nation's fourth-largest city -- and sprawls over 617 square miles.

But that observation has held true over time. In the last 135 years,
Houstonians have constantly sought new housing on the outskirts. With
that growth, the city continually has had to figure out the best ways to get
around.

That task has grown into an enormous problem today, with 4.7 million
residents and 4 million vehicles in the eight-county metropolitan area.
While Houston has one of the largest freeway networks of any U.S. city,
its air pollution and mass-transit system are considered to be among the
worst.

As a result, Houstonians drive more miles per day than motorists in any
other U.S. city. Traffic, transportation and poor streets have ranked No. 1
in polls of voter concerns here the last few years.

Now, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which plans to open the city's first
light rail line on its 25th birthday, Jan. 1, 2004, is asking voters for an early
gift: a "yes" vote in the Nov. 4 transit-expansion referendum. The "Metro
Solutions" proposal calls for $640 million in bonds to accelerate
construction of 22 light rail miles by 2012, $774 million in extra street
funding through 2014, and a 50 percent increase in bus service by 2025.

As voters weigh the future of transit, it might be helpful to consider the
past.


Before the streetcars began after the Civil War, getting from one place to
the other was not a pleasant experience. Those unable to afford their own
horse and buggy were left no choice but to walk in often muddy streets.

Sustained mule-drawn trolley service began in 1874. By 1886, the trolleys
were encouraging the city's first sprawl. The Houston City Street Railway
Co. operated six lines, using 41 cars, 119 mules and 60 employees.
Houstonians had a choice of where to live, and development outside
downtown took off. By 1890, the population topped 27,000.

The following year, the first electric streetcar was put into service,
improving travel time and drawing stares from people who "looked
askance at this contraption that moved with nothing apparent to push or
pull it," the Houston Daily Post reported.

The electric trolleys would encourage development farther out. Express
"interurban" streetcars would later link Houston to Galveston and
Baytown.

But the creation of the automobile would doom the trolleys. They first
faced rubber-wheeled competition in 1914, when "jitney" carriers
appeared. These were private vehicles similar to taxis carrying
passengers for a fee on a somewhat-fixed route.

The beginning of the end for streetcars came a decade later, when the
Houston Electric Co. Introduced the city's first buses in 1924 to serve
newly developed neighborhoods not on streetcar lines. Meanwhile, private
auto usage continued to increase.

Still, mass transit ruled the city's transportation network into the late
1920s. About 80 percent of Houstonians rode buses or streetcars into
downtown. The streetcar system reached its peak in 1927 with 90 city
track miles. If Metro voters approve this year's referendum, Houston won't
have 90 miles of operating rail track again until 2019.

By 1940, most of the streetcar lines were abandoned. On April 12 of that
year, Houston Mayor Oscar Holcombe announced that he had reached an
agreement with the Houston Electric Co. to cease the last line. The city
removed all remaining tracks.

Houston obtained right of way along the former interurban route to
Galveston, which would become the Gulf Freeway in 1948. The opening
of Houston's first superhighway would forever change regional mobility
patterns, and spur the intense suburban development and annexation that
has made Houston the monster city it is today.


Opponents of Metro's referendum contend that voters should remember
these lessons: The streetcars were proven to be inflexible and unable to
meet the demands of a growing city. The naysayers consider urban rail
transit to be a dinosaur that should never be resuscitated.

"Not another dime of taxpayers' money should be squandered on rail,"
said Tom Bazan, a Houston Property Rights Association member who is a
constant thorn in Metro's side. "Rail was shut down and torn up when
everyone realized that buses run rings around rail. Since the bureaucrats
failed to learn from history, the taxpayers are stuck with the Main Street
toy train until it is decided that the precious tax money is better spent on
improving mobility with the logical solution: rubber-tired vehicles."

Metro responds that light rail is far more sophisticated than the old
streetcars, and that the region has grown too large for automobile and bus
traffic to cover all its mobility needs. High-capacity transit is necessary to
keep Houston prosperous, transit officials argue, and help spur
redevelopment inside Loop 610 back to dense, pedestrian-friendly
neighborhoods that are easy to navigate without a car.

"We have not seen here in Houston, over a 20-year time period, a
response from the development community around our Park & Ride lots
or HOV lanes," said Metro Vice President John Sedlak, who has spent 20
years with the transit authority. "A fixed form of mass transit has the
potential of a development response different from a rubber-tired vehicle."

Public transportation in Houston did not exist until 1974. After the
streetcar tracks were yanked out, buses were run by private companies
for another three decades. Eventually, they could not manage a profit, as
95 percent of Houstonians used private automobiles for their
transportation -- about the same percentage as today.

in 1974, when the city of Houston bought the assets of Rapid Transit
Lanes, the last private bus operator, it was the last major city in the nation
to provide public transportation.

The need for a regional agency soon became clear. Area leaders came
together again in 1977 to draft a regional transportation plan, which
residents endorsed the following year with a vote to create the
Metropolitan Transit Authority.


Metro began service Jan. 1, 1979. It inherited a dilapidated fleet of buses
that were so miserable the Houston Chronicle began publishing daily a
front-page box tallying bus breakdowns.

From that rough beginning, Metro has improved into one of the better
regarded transit authorities in the United States. But it has failed to attract
the political support needed to build a rail network.

Voters rejected a $2.3 billion bond referendum in 1983 that would have
financed an 18-mile, heavy rail line. Five years later, three-fifths of voters
endorsed a Metro transit plan that included $1 billion of light rail. Metro's
board in 1991 amended the plan to a monorail system. Board Chairman
Bob Lanier resigned in disgust and ran for mayor, promising to kill the
monorail plan. He won and did.

Rail didn't come up again until after Mayor Lee Brown's election in 1997.
Two years later, Metro's board approved building the Main Street line,
which is nearing completion, linking downtown with Reliant Park.

Supporters of Metro's third rail referendum, Nov. 4, are confident that the
next chapter of Houston's mass-transit history will include construction of
a significant light rail system. Opponents are campaigning to ensure that
part doesn't make the book.



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

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2127552

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 29, 2003


VIEWPOINTS

Pain of 'mobility misery'

We all deserve clean air

The Chronicle's Sept. 26 article, "Rail foes mobilize to defeat proposal /
GOP officials, developers plan ad campaign," about the organized
opposition to the Metropolitan Transit Authority's Metro Solutions plan
held no surprises. The usual suspects -- suburban real estate developers
who benefit from free roads at public expense, politicians who want more
power and campaign contributions, road builders and concrete companies
seeking lucrative contracts and car dealers wishing to sell more cars --
find the idea of building rail inside Loop 610 contrary to their interests.
Beaten into submission by these interests, the Metropolitan Transit
Authority board has reduced the first phase of its plan to include only a
few "starter lines" that will permit future extension beyond Loop 610.

Special interests see those extensions as the real threat, so they hope to
stop any expansion of rail for as long as possible.

The West Houston Association has reported that as much as 25 percent
of the population of the entire metropolitan area will live in west Houston
in the near future, and that their mobility needs will be solved by the
Westpark toll road and the interstate 10 expansion that includes toll lanes.

This projected growth is precisely why Metro wanted to build rail along the
i-10 corridor, but was squeezed out and left only with reinforced
overpasses to permit rail at some vague distant date.

All Houstonians (including those living in areas where starter rail lines will
be built) deserve not just better mobility, but the enhanced quality of life
through neighborhood revitalization that will follow rail development.

And we all deserve to breathe the cleaner air that will be the result of
reducing our dependence on more lanes of concrete and more cars.
Thinking Houstonians will support the greater good and vote for the Metro
Solutions Plan.

Tom McKittrick, Houston


Straight story on streetcars

it is certainly worthwhile to examine the past, but the Chronicle's Sept. 29
article, "From mule car to light rail, city linked by mass transit," does not
provide the whole story of the demise of Houston's streetcars.

Houston's previous rail transit was not "proven to be inflexible and unable
to meet the demands of a growing city," as critics contend, but was
destroyed by a concerted public policy to promote motor vehicle
transportation at the expense of rail.

First, Houston's electric streetcars had to pave the streets they used, thus
subsidizing their own competition. Second, while the streetcar operation
had to maintain its own infrastructure, cars and buses were furnished
roadways at the public's expense.

I don't have Houston figures specifically, but between 1921 and 1940,
when Houston's urban streetcar operations ceased, U.S. roadways (in
2003) received a total of $388 billion in subsidies, 91 percent of it state
and local. Houston's streetcars received nothing.

Add to all this the nationwide, politically focused campaign against rail by
the highway-motor vehicle industry, and it's a wonder any rail transit
systems survived at all. Today's mobility misery is a direct product of
history's "transit holocaust."

Lyndon Henry, transportation planner, Austin




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

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200309/28/eng20030928_125128.shtml

People's Daily Online
Sunday, September 28, 2003

Rail, not Maglev, is to be used for high-speed Beijng-Shanghai railroad

By PD Online staff Li Jia

Rail technology is the final choice for the high-speed Beijing-Shanghai
railroad, according to news from Chinese Ministry of Railways on
September 25.The project, involving a total investment of around 130
billion yuan, is to be completed in 5-6 years.

Rail technology is the final choice for the high-speed Beijing-Shanghai
railroad, according to news from Chinese Ministry of Railways on
September 25.The project, involving a total investment of around 130
billion yuan, is to be completed in 5-6 years.

At the China Railway Construction Summit being held in Hangzhou, the
construction project of the hi-speed Beijing-Shanghai Railway becomes
the focus of attention from the attendees. Feasibility studies on the project
are under way.

People from the said ministry present at the meeting claimed that the
existing Beijing-Shanghai Railway has a total length of 1,463 km, whereas
the 1,300-km projected hi-speed railroad is planned to use rail technology.

Earlier, related experts pointed out that if maglev is adopted, the total cost
will amount to 400 billion yuan, or 300 million per km. Whereas the use of
rail technology will cost a total of 130billion yuan, 100 million yuan per km.

The Economic Newscast of CCTV quoted a personage from the Ministry
of Railways by saying that under the contract, construction of the project
will be divided into several parts, for instance, track-laying will be
undertaken by Chinese enterprises, while rolling stocks respectively by
firms of Germany, Japan and France through competitive bidding. Of
these three source-lands of hi-speed railways in the world, Germany puts
emphasis on maglev technology, while Japan and France take rail
technology as primary.



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2001745767_updates28.html

Seattle Times
Sunday, September 28, 2003

Travel updates

Fast tunnel train just got faster

The U.K.'s first major stretch of new rail track for more than a century has
opened, cutting travel times between London, Paris and Brussels by 20
minutes. The $3.1 billion first phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will
reduce the time it takes Eurostar Group's trains to travel between London
and Paris to two hours and 35 minutes. Eurostar's trains will travel at 186
miles per hour on the 46-mile stretch of new track, compared with the
maximum speed of 100 miles per hour on the old track. The second stage
of the new railway will extend the high-speed line into London's St.
Pancras station. It's scheduled to open by 2007. It will reduce the travel
time between London and Paris to 2 hours and 15 minutes.

— Seattle Times wire



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001750745_amtrak29m
.html

Seattle Times
Monday, September 29, 2003

Murray's efforts key in keeping Amtrak on track

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington bureau

it's a precarious time for the nation's passenger rail system.

President Bush wants to dismantle Amtrak, and the House recently
passed a spending bill that will force it into bankruptcy, say Amtrak
officials. One angry congressman suggested the federal government
should buy plane tickets for rail travelers, since subsidies cost more than
$300 per passenger on some routes.

Top among those fighting for Amtrak's survival is Sen. Patty Murray, D-
Wash., who says she believes trains provide a critical alternative to cars.
Her legislative maneuvering this month added more than $430 million for
Amtrak in the Senate transportation bill.

Unless Murray and Amtrak's other supporters are successful in keeping
the extra money in the final bill that goes before Bush, rail stations across
the country will begin to shut down, says Amtrak.

Critics don't believe such dire predictions, contending Amtrak is playing its
perennial game of chicken with Congress to eke out more money.

it's a loud debate, and since Murray became the highest-ranking
Democrat on the Senate transportation-spending subcommittee in 2001,
this state's senior senator has had an influential voice.

"Her role in the process has been critical to Amtrak's survival," said
Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black.

Formed in 1971, Amtrak is a private company that serves 500
communities in 46 states. The most heavily used runs are in the
Northeast.

Despite hopes that the system eventually would be self-sufficient, Amtrak
has never operated in the black. It has received $26.6 billion in federal
money in its 32-year history.


A Bush administration plan would dismantle Amtrak, leaving states to
decide whether to fund local- and long-distance rail service.

Congress has not acted on the proposal, and Murray opposes it, saying
states don't have the money to operate the nation's rail system.

According to Amtrak statistics, King Street Station in Seattle is the nation's
15th-busiest, with roughly 580,000 passengers annually. Yet all of the
routes through Seattle lose money.

Amtrak estimates that it loses about $15 per passenger on the Vancouver,
B.C.,-to-Eugene, Ore., route via Seattle. It loses about $116 per
passenger on the "Empire Builder" from Seattle to Chicago. The "Coast
Starlight" from Los Angeles to Seattle costs about $79 per passenger.

By comparison, the Los Angeles-to-Orlando route is subsidized at $332
per passenger.

Murray says the level of federal assistance is acceptable. "You cannot
have a transportation system that is not publicly funded. I don't care if
you're talking about airlines or buses or anything," she said.

"(The plan for self-sufficiency) was a lesson in failure. We asked Amtrak
to do something that wasn't possible."

This year, negotiations on Amtrak funding went down to the last minute.

On the morning of Sept. 3, Murray met with Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.,
in the Senate cloakroom to present her funding ideas about Amtrak.

Shelby is chairman of the Senate transportation-spending subcommittee,
and they worked closely to put together the $91 billion transportation-
spending bill. The bill also funds several government agencies.

Shelby has been a longtime opponent of Amtrak funding, contending the
service is too heavily subsidized. He intended to put forth a budget
proposal that afternoon that would set aside $900 million for Amtrak next
year.

The White House sought the same figure in its proposed 2004 budget.
But railroad officials say $900 million would not be enough to run the
system.

Murray's aides scoured the spending proposal, looking for places to divert
money to Amtrak, and the cloakroom meeting was the first time Murray
presented her proposal to Shelby face to face.

There wasn't much time to hash out details; Shelby was set to convene a
meeting of his subcommittee to pass the spending bill that afternoon.
Murray proposed a patchwork of savings to pay for an added $434 million,
including cutting nonessential travel and office supplies for federal
employees ($128 million), taking money from the U.S. National Archives
and Records Administration and the IRS ($105 million), diverting unspent
highway funds ($156 million) and saving rent on government offices ($60
million).

Just minutes before the Sept. 3 subcommittee meeting, Shelby's office
gave word that he agreed to Murray's proposal.

Murray's aides were rewriting her statement as she made her way from
the Senate floor to the packed committee room where Shelby unveiled his
transportation bill.

"This (funding) level is not as high as I would like to see it, but it certainly
is a level that is higher than the Chairman (Shelby) would like to see," she
said at the time. "We have gone about as high as we can go in meeting
Amtrak's needs."

The full Senate Appropriations Committee later approved the bill calling
for $1.34 billion for Amtrak. It now goes to the Senate floor. A vote is
expected in the next few weeks.

"The Senate hasn't completed its work, but Sen. Murray has played a
central role in keeping Amtrak from getting a shut-down figure," said Scott
Leonard, assistant director of the National Association of Railroad
Passengers, an advocacy group that supports Amtrak.

Amtrak had a much rougher time in the House.

The chairman of the House transportation-spending subcommittee, Rep.
Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma, proposed only $580 million for Amtrak. Istook
is also opposing a $500 million federal grant for Sound Transit's light-rail
project.

The House eventually passed a bill that included $900 million for Amtrak,
but not without critics taking to the floor to blast the service.

"They want taxpayer money for their long-term, capital investments
because they have handled their system so poorly that they find it difficult
to attract private dollars," said Istook. "We should not accept their 'sky is
falling, Chicken Little' arguments."

Another Republican congressman, Thomas Tancredo, said with as many
people walking to work as taking the train, "It makes as much sense for
Congress to subsidize Nike sneakers as it does for them to subsidize rail
service."

Murray will be part of the House-Senate conference convened to hammer
out a final transportation-spending bill. Istook will also take part in the
conference.

And that sets the stage for another congressional showdown over Amtrak.

"Amtrak has said that the funding level approved by the House will cause
bankruptcy," said Murray. "Whether House members can get Istook to
move to the Senate number, we'll just have to wait and see."

Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or afryer@seattletimes.com



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

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-
bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=ferries28&date=20030928

Seattle Times
Sunday, September 28, 2003

Loss of foot-ferry service jam-packs Bremerton runs

By The Associated Press


BREMERTON — For ferry commuters between Bremerton and Seattle,
the first workweek without passenger-only vessels was marked by
crowded conditions onboard the regular ferries, especially during evening
rush hour.

That's no surprise. About 700 commuters who relied on the "foot ferries"
had to go somewhere after state officials terminated the heavily
subsidized service Sept. 20, saying fares covered less than 30 cents of
each dollar of costs.

But few anticipated how packed the 5:30 p.m. sailing from Seattle would
be.

For the past week, average ridership on that run has been well over
1,000, and the ferry has about 750 seats, The Sun newspaper reported
yesterday. Many commuters were left standing while others jockeyed for
space.

"Monday was a mess. They kept announcing over the intercom for people
to scoot over, scoot over," said commuter Beckie Regusci, of Bremerton.
"There were four to five people to a bench. Sometimes six."

The boats can hold 1,200 passengers and have enough life preservers for
that number, but there aren't enough seats for everyone.

The 790-seat ferry Kitsap, which usually makes the Bremerton run, was
docked last week for a Coast Guard inspection, so the 750-seat Chelan
replaced it.

"it's frustrating," said Bob Murphy, of Bremerton. The Washington State
Ferries "had all this time to prepare. Here I come in Monday morning and
I've got the Chelan looking at me. I wasn't the only one going 'Ah, crap.' "

Last Sunday, about 200 people were turned away because there wasn't
room aboard the Chelan for the crowds heading home to Bremerton after
the Seahawks game in Seattle.

"I keep hearing rumors about the 5:30 p.m. sailing from Seattle turning
away people who then have to wait for the 6:45 sailing," said Fred Chang,
chairman of the Bremerton Ferry Advisory Committee.

System spokeswoman Susan Harris-Huether said walk-ons were turned
away on Sunday only. There was no repeat during the workweek. "That's
an urban legend growing up among Bremerton commuters, and it's not
true," she said.

Some commuters are suggesting the system add a third boat or try a
larger vessel but Harris-Huether said that's not an option. There are no
jumbo-class vessels to spare from the Bainbridge or Edmonds runs.

The Bainbridge run involves more passengers and vehicles than
Bremerton; the Edmonds ferry carries more vehicles and is a major truck
route. The large vessels serving the San Juan islands always fill up
because the runs are limited.

"Once you go through that exercise, you find out there are no spare
boats," said Mike Anderson, the system's director of marine operations.

A second and larger ferry, the super-class Hyak with a maximum capacity
of 2,500, serves the two other most crowded evening runs on the
Bremerton route at 4:20 and 6:45 p.m.

Even if a second large vessel were available, it would probably not be
used on the Bremerton run, Harris-Huether said.

"None of the other sailings (at different times) come close to meeting
capacity," she said. "Why would we do that for one sailing?"

Chang said he's relieved that reports of walk-on passengers being turned
away during the workweek were untrue, "but it doesn't seem right that
1,000 people are crammed onto a boat with 750 seats, even if there are
1,200 life preservers."



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

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/9/29/17542673.cfm

The Daily Herald - Everett, Wash.
September 29, 2003

America's thirst for gas needs to be restrained

Just when gasoline prices that had us fuming all summer were supposed
to ease, the oil market took a U-turn last week.

The OPEC oil cartel announced Wednesday that it would cut production
to keep prices from falling with seasonal demand. We shouldn't have
needed the reminder that the United States is still too dependent on
foreign oil. Yet judging from action on Capitol Hill, Republicans in
Congress seem oblivious to the obvious.

GOP leaders working to finalize a broad energy bill last week threw out
efforts to raise federal mileage standards for cars, vans and gas-guzzling
SUVs. They said they were worried about safety, because to get better
gas mileage vehicles would have to be smaller and lighter. By that logic,
we should all drive Hummers and shell out whatever the Saudis and their
OPEC pals demand at the pump.

Anyone older than 45 knows the downside of our dependence on foreign
oil. The Arab oil embargo of 1973 and '74 tripled the price of crude oil and
caused insufferable lines at gas stations. There's nothing like waiting half
a day to fill up to make you start thinking about fuel efficiency.

in response, Congress established average gas-mileage standards for
passenger cars. By 1985 the standard reached 27.5 miles per gallon,
exactly where it stands today. The standard for light trucks is 20.7 mpg,
but few four-wheel-drive SUVs do that well.

Our thirst for gasoline comes at a price beyond what we pay at the pump.
Imagine how different our foreign policy might be if we didn't care about
Middle East oil. And the pressure to drill in wildlife refuges and off our
coasts builds along with our consumption.

Current gas prices, especially if they linger into the winter, should stand as
more than a symbolic reminder that as a nation, we need to do better.
Given the political and environmental stakes, higher gas-mileage
standards ought to be a priority.

That much should be clear even on Capitol Hill.




CONTENTS - PTP Digest 2003/09/28-A

* Salt Lake: TRAX LRT Medical Center extension opens Monday
   The Salt Lake Tribune SUNDAY September 28, 2003

* Tacoma: Link streetcar ridership exceeds projections
   Tacoma News Tribune September 26th, 2003

* Tacoma: Regional rail, streetcar boost business
   Tacoma News Tribune  September 26th, 2003

* America seen through Amtrak's window
   BBC News Sunday, 28 September, 2003

* Keep Amtrak intact
   The Oregonian - Portland 09/28/03

* Kuala Lumpur monorail: Over 170,000 riders in 15 days
   The Star Online News Thursday September 18, 2003



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

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/sep/09282003/utah/utah.asp

The Salt Lake Tribune
SUNDAY September 28, 2003

TRAX debuts extension linking U. medical center


In anticipation of a new spur, which crosses an area of heavy traffic,
TRAX has been running test trains, with no passengers, along Medical
Drive below the School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer institute. (Al
Hartmann/The Salt Lake Tribune)

By Joe Baird
The Salt Lake Tribune

    The TRAX extension to the University of Utah's medical center opens
Monday. It is at once the shortest and most complicated light rail spur the
Utah Transit Authority has built since the original line made its debut
nearly four years ago.
    The good news: the 1.5-mile stretch of track has been finished more
than a year early, and at a price tag of $89.4 million, will come in on
budget. Yet, with a winding route that takes the new line right through
campus, the trains will be interacting with pedestrians, bicyclists and
motorists at a level that simply doesn't exist elsewhere in the TRAX
system. Safety will be an ongoing concern.
    "It's a unique operating environment from what we've had in the past.
We're going to be close to a lot of places where people want to go," says
Paul O'Brien, UTA's director of rail services.
    "We've done three weeks of testing up here, so people have had a
chance to get used to seeing the trains," he adds. "What we haven't had
is the chance to see people interact with the stations. So there's a little
anxiety in that regard. But overall, we feel pretty good about it."
    Three new stations have been added for the medical center spur, which
makes its debut with an 11:30 a.m. ceremony and will be open to
passengers by early afternoon. The first stop is South Campus, located
between the Huntsman Center and the LDS Church institute of Religion;
next is Fort Douglas, which sits next to the Olympic Legacy Bridge on
Wasatch Drive, just below the university's new student housing. The
extension ends at the University Medical Center stop, site of Monday's
ceremony.
    The new TRAX spur should provide immediate relief for the sprawling
medical complex -- including Primary Children's Medical Center, the
Moran Eye Center and the Huntsman Cancer institute -- which employs
more than 14,000 workers, handles thousands more patients and is
perpetually short on parking spaces.
    "We're counting on it to alleviate the parking situation at the medical
center, much like the way the opening of the Stadium Stop really eased
the parking problem on the lower campus," says Norman Chambers, the
university's vice president for Auxiliary Services. "The employees are
really looking forward to the opening of this line."
    TRAX officials project an initial weekday ridership of around 3,000 a
day on the new spur, and expect those numbers to climb over time.
Currently, 7,500 commuters a day take TRAX to the university on
weekdays and more than 31,000 passengers a day use TRAX
systemwide, Monday through Friday.
    "I'm already taking the train to the U., and with the shuttle from the
stadium it takes me about an hour to get to work," says Babir Singh, a
Sandy resident who works as a nursing assistant at University Hospital.
"I'm sure I'll be saving 15 minutes, and maybe even a half-hour once the
train starts running to the hospital."
    But that short, seven-minute hop from the stadium to the end of the line
will bear watching, particularly in the first few months of operation.
    The simplest way to describe the situation is this: as it snakes up South
Campus Drive, the new TRAX line sits between campus facilities to the
north and major parking lots to the south. Students and staff will have to
cross the tracks daily to get where they are going.
    in another twist, motorists will have to navigate the large roundabout at
the intersection of South Campus and Campus Center drives -- which has
been in operation for months now -- and three other intersections that
feature protected right-hand turns. In other words, no turns on red lights.
    TRAX and university officials are confident drivers will get the hang of
the new intersections, including the Wasatch Drive-Medical Drive nexus,
where only traffic signals prevent motorists from crossing the TRAX line.
The roundabout -- which UTA officials call the only one in the country with
trains running through it -- is fortified with several gates. Another set of
gates stops traffic flow on 400 South, next to the stadium.
    More problematic are areas of pedestrian and bicycle convergence,
places where human nature -- in this case 18-, 19- and 20-year-old
human nature -- could come into play. It's not too hard to envision a
student running late and sprinting from his car to class via the fastest
route possible -- which now may mean bolting across the tracks in
prohibited areas. Only at the South Campus station is there a fence -- built
because of an elevation change -- to deter such impulses.
    "We had many discussions about whether we needed fences [along the
route]," says university vice president Chambers. "What we determined
was they can be a trap, too, if somebody gets stuck between them."
    To counter the potential jaywalking problem, the U. and UTA have
embarked on an ambitious safety-awareness program. Fliers have been
posted all over campus since July and information tables have been set
up at the Union and other campus gathering spots. Additional
enforcement staff will be posted around stops, at least initially.
    And violators caught crossing the tracks illegally will pay. A jaywalking
ticket at the U. runs $50; UTA will hit transgressors with a $100 fine for
trespassing.
    "You could be looking at as much as $150," says UTA spokeswoman
Andrea Packer. "When people find out how much it could cost them, it's a
little bit of a shock."
    Of course, there is an even steeper cost if a jaywalker or oblivious
driver actually crosses paths with a train. Which is the point of all the
awareness efforts -- not to mention a series of little tricks TRAX has set up
along the routes, such as trains controlling intersection lights to prevent
anybody from making illegal turns. Or putting four gates at the roundabout
instead of two.
    "We know what helps prevent accidents," says rail service director
O'Brien. "We've done a lot of things based upon the needs we have here
and our earlier experience with the other lines."
    jbaird@sltrib.com




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

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4009792p-4030961c.html

Tacoma News Tribune
September 26th, 2003

Link ridership exceeds projections

JOSEPH TURNER; The News Tribune

Sound Transit officials haven't had much to brag about for the past
several years, so they're making the most out of the initial success of the
tiny streetcar line in Tacoma.

instead of defending a $1 billion cost-estimate error on its Seattle-to-
SeaTac segment, fending off Tim Eyman's effort to slash its funding or
trying to persuade Congress to cough up $500 million, agency officials
last week were touting the ridership in Tacoma.


The number of boardings on the 1.6-mile Link route between downtown
and the Tacoma Dome has exceeded the agency's projected ridership for
2010 - one month into its existence and seven years ahead of schedule.


Consultants who put together ridership estimates for the Tacoma segment
said weekday boardings on the downtown Tacoma segment would be
2,000 by 2010. The average for the first month of operation has been
about 2,170 on weekdays.


There are several reasons for the apparent success:


•it's free. Riders don't have to pay the $1.25 fare that they would have to
pay to ride the bus. Although Metro Transit has had a "free ride zone" in
downtown Seattle for 30 years, Pierce Transit didn't offer daylong free bus
service in downtown Tacoma until about a year ago.


•Parsons Brinckerhoff, the consultants who projected ridership for Sound
Move, the three-county transit plan that voters approved in 1996, was
deliberately on the conservative side.


•Actual ridership is part head count and part guesswork. Sound Transit
spokesman Lee Somerstein said the streetcar operators count the
number of people waiting at each stop and write them down most days.
There are two entrances on the 56-passenger trains and drivers don't
count the actual number of people who get on the train.


"it's about a 5 percent margin for error," Somerstein said. "The counts, we
feel, are pretty good."


There are no official "clicker" counters on the trains, he said, but agency
officials are looking into whether it would be worth it to install automated
devices to count passengers.


•The Farmers Market in downtown Tacoma every Thursday has become
quite a draw. Thursdays consistently are the highest ridership days,
including 3,355 riders on Sept. 18. That's the highest it's been, except for
the first-day opening day.


The last Farmers Market for this season will be Oct. 16.


•Parking at Pierce Transit's Tacoma Dome station, which has 2,400 stalls,
also is free, and off-street parking in downtown Tacoma is getting pricey.
The City Council recently raised monthly parking at city-owned garages to
$125 a month.


"People now realize they can park for free at the Tacoma Dome Station
and it's only seven minutes to Ninth and Commerce," said Lind Simonsen,
Pierce Transit spokesman. "That's exactly what the station was designed
to do: Keep cars out of the downtown area."


Simonsen said there's still about one-third capacity left at the transit
parking garages.


"I've talked to people who now are making the trip down to Freighthouse
Square twice a week where they used to do it once a month," Simonsen
said.


Paul Ellis, a senior manager for the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of
Commerce, said he believes one reason for higher-than-expected Link
ridership is its newness.


"it's something that's new and novel and interesting," he said.


Link's existence gives downtown workers who can't afford to pay for
monthly off-street parking an option to park in a remote location (Tacoma
Dome) and get to their offices, rather than parking on the street and
worrying about getting a ticket, he said.


in fact, Ellis predicts Link ridership will rise even more if Tacoma officials
act to discourage so-called "chain parking" on downtown streets. Chain
parking is when a person - often a downtown business employee - parks
on the street in front of a business and moves the vehicle periodically to
avoid getting a ticket for violating the time limit.


The chamber's executive board approved a resolution Thursday urging
the City Council to be more aggressive in its chain parking enforcement,
he said.




Joseph Turner: 253-597-8436
joe.turner@mail.tribnet.com




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

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4009790p-4031022c.html

Tacoma News Tribune
September 26th, 2003

A new start for businesses

MARTHA MODEEN; The News Tribune

Bottles of aspirin are flying off the shelf at a small store in Freighthouse
Square. It's more than welcome pain relief - it's a sign of an emerging
commuter economy at the Dome District warehouse, home to more than
three dozen shops, restaurants and offices.

in the past month, many shop owners have seen an increase in business
after more than three years of construction headaches that accompanied
Sound Transit rail lines built on either side of the three-block-long building.


The funky mix of mom-and-pop stores faced a tough economy, like
businesses nationwide did during the past few years. But it has taken
special grit for Freighthouse Square companies to stay afloat. A handful of
stores moved or closed, unable to withstand the dwindling foot traffic.
Others fought to survive as shoppers grew tired of navigating construction
on roads, sidewalks, a nearby parking garage and a new concourse in the
building.


"It was bad," said Lisa Purvis, manager of the Cake Studio, rolling her
eyes skyward. "It went on for years."


The Cake Studio's customers jumped over blocked roads and virtual
"moats," determined to get their pastries, Purvis said.


That's all changing. Some businesses have seen profits surge as much as
30 percent since Sounder commuter trains began service at Freighthouse
Square on Aug. 22 and the Tacoma Link streetcar service began
operating Sept. 15.


Each weekday, some 2,200 passengers on average are riding Link, while
several hundred passengers are riding commuter rail to Seattle and back,
according to Sound Transit passenger figures.


"It was almost as if somebody flipped a switch," said Gary Pieterman,
owner of The Giving Place, a store that sells wine, magazines and gifts.


in the past month, Pieterman began opening his store just before 6 a.m.
to catch the northbound commuters. He's selling newspapers, legal pads,
toothpaste and aspirin - items popular for those taking the trains. At night,
Pieterman keeps his store open until 7 p.m. to catch returning commuters
and the food court's dinner crowd - people who might buy a bottle of wine
or convenience groceries for dinner.


"Gradually, people are building some new routines," Pieterman said.


Elsewhere in the square, Michael Smith, a hair stylist and owner of
Hairartz salon, also is enjoying the brisk pace.


Smith estimates that his profits have increased 25 percent to 30 percent.
Like other shops, most of his new business has come from Tacoma Link
during lunchtime. Sounder's 6:12, 6:27 and 6:42 a.m. trains operate too
early, before most businesses open.


Smith is not just an enthusiastic business owner, he's also a Link rider.
When he wants a break, he hops on the streetcar and rides to a
Starbucks coffee shop downtown and returns within 20 minutes or so.


"I am so psyched with it," Smith said as he applied a permanent solution
to a client's curlers. "Now, I think the train should be built through the city
and to Point Defiance."


Business owners say downtown shoppers, college students and area
workers are riding the streetcar to Freighthouse.


Earlier this week, Elton Gatewood, neighborhood council coordinator for
the City of Tacoma, chatted over Thai food with a lunch companion after
riding Link for the first time from his City Hall job. Gatewood stopped going
to Freighthouse during construction.


"Now there's no driving, no hassle," Gatewood said. "it's a chance to
refresh yourself to meet the 1 o'clock grind."


As Gatewood ate lunch, the drama of the public market economy played
itself out around him. Kitchen utensils clattered in the background and the
aromas of deep-fried, Greek, Thai and Mexican foods wafted through the
air.


Still, not every business owner is seeing any benefit.


Hae Yon Brandstetter, owner of the Mocha Stop, had a line of customers
waiting to buy coffee nearly two weeks ago when Sounder began service.
Since then, business has dropped off.


Now she's working three more hours a day - an extra 21 hours a week -
during her seven-day, 80-hour work week. But she's losing money. From 6
a.m. to 9 a.m, she makes roughly $31, not enough to pay an employee to
work for her.


"I will do my best," she said, adding she's unsure whether she can remain
in business.


Brandstetter may find some relief as commuters and streetcar riders build
new routines and a new mix of stores comes to the 108,000-square-foot
shopping center.


Lyn Thompson, Freighthouse business manager, has a vision that the
square will become a virtual center of the community, framed by the
streetcar, commuter trains, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit Express buses
and free parking.


Thompson plans to add such commuter-friendly businesses as a dry
cleaner, a mail-service store, a gourmet pizza shop and a video and DVD
rental store by December. She hopes to add a health club on the lower
level within the year. She also envisions a store that sells fresh produce
and groceries for commuters who hop off the train.


"We're in the process of changing. It's a brand new day," she said.


Martha Modeen: 253-597-8646
martha.modeen@mail.tribnet.com



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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/3143440.st
m

BBC News
Sunday, 28 September, 2003

America through Amtrak's window

By the BBC's Richard Hollingham

Since the 11 September attacks many Americans have turned away from
the airlines - either deciding not to travel at all or switching to railways.


Amtrak loses close to $1bn a year

Surveys suggest that passenger numbers are up on most rail routes in the
US - but for the nation that pioneered long-distance rail travel, the service
is in a poor way.

Trains are run by the government-funded Amtrak and are slow, unreliable
and have to give way to more profitable freight services.

As a result the Bush administration wants to privatise the network.

So, I took one of America's long-distance trains to sample the service for
myself.

Looming nightmares

The taxi driver looked at me as if I were some sort of deranged lunatic and
then spent the remainder of the early morning journey warning me of the
nightmares ahead.


  For America's railroad operators, passengers aren't the priority

He told me it would be so much easier to fly from New Orleans to
Washington DC in about two hours, asking: "How long was the train going
to take?"

He almost crashed when I told him 26.

Union Station in New Orleans was once one of the city's finest buildings.

Now the marble hall doubles as a bus terminal. The destination board lists
only three services a day - including mine, the Crescent.

Going 'Colonial'

The train itself couldn't have been in greater contrast to its shabby
surroundings: a line of silver carriages headed by two enormous diesel
locomotives, each coach with its own name.


Amtrak's new trains can travel up to 150 mph

I was in Colonial, which - me being the only Brit on board - seemed
somehow apt.

I'd booked a compartment.

it is a marvel of design as in a space little bigger than a bathtub they had
somehow managed to fit two chairs, a table, bunks, toilet, basin and even
a television.

I felt even more colonial when Gail, our carriage attendant, explained that
there was also a shower and that breakfast would be served shortly.

'Egalitarian' meals

With a reverberating blast from the horns we clattered slowly, and slightly
precariously, out of the station and through the suburbs of New Orleans.


  Most Americans don't know what they are missing

Then out across a narrow trestle bridge and into the swamplands of
Louisiana.

Our route would take us up into Mississippi then east through Alabama,
Georgia and the Carolinas to the East Coast - a distance of about 1,000
miles (1610 km) stopping at 25 stations along the way, many little more
than a bench and a peeling sign.

Despite the class differences on the train - coach through deluxe - meals
are egalitarian affairs.

Cooked on board and served on white linen tablecloths in the dining car,
they're a good way to meet fellow travellers.

At breakfast I got talking to Jim, a businessman from New York and a
regular Amtrak traveller particularly since 11 September.

Not only, he says, is it a more relaxing way to travel, it's also a good deal
more secure.

He's had his fill of airlines. What he can't countenance is the fact that
Amtrak is a nationalised institution that loses close on $1bn each year.


  To critics of Amtrak: services like the Crescent are anachronisms that
deserve to go the same way as the horse and carriage

But for America's railroad operators, passengers aren't the priority.

The majority of lines don't carry them at all.

They are reserved for high-speed freight trains, shifting bulk cargo across
the continent.

Amtrak doesn't even own most of the tracks, they're leased from the
freight companies.

Sometimes that means passengers shunted into sidings to make way for
containers or oil or grain.

Only one service - that between Washington and Boston - travels
anywhere near the speeds of European railways. Ours trundled along at a
relatively sedate 60 mph (96 kph).

Stuck in West Virginia

By the end of dinner, I had been on the train for 11 hours, had eaten three
enormous meals and spent most of the rest of the time dozing, reading or
talking to my companions.

Too much longer and I would be so grotesquely fat I wouldn't be able to fit
along the corridors.

We pulled into Atlanta and more passengers joined the train - connecting
from Chattanoga.

it's telling that the Chattanoga Choo Choo is now a bus.

By 2100 local time I'd done sufficiently little to feel it was time for bed.

Gail prepared my bunk as I discussed the relative merits of rail
privatisation in the bar with Bob, a guesthouse owner from North Carolina.

I slept well, apparently missing the most scenic part of the journey and
awoke to silence.


The air conditioners quiet, the lights dim and perhaps most worrying the
toilet's "out of service" light was on.

Charlottesville, West Virginia, an attractive town by all accounts - and
there are probably worse places to be stuck in a broken-down train.

As assorted train personnel gathered around the engine muttering, the
rest of us ambled up and down the platform.

Sad feelings

it was a beautiful Sunday morning and no-one was that bothered.

Apparently it always happens when there's a journalist on board.

Two hours later one of the two engines is shunted into a siding and we
are underway again.

After 28 hours we pull into Union Station in Washington - its immaculately
restored vaulted roof and marble halls a homage to the railways.

To critics of Amtrak: services like the Crescent are anachronisms that
deserve to go the same way as the horse and carriage.

But I would be sad to see them go - I had no plans for the 26 hours i
would have saved if I had flown, I wouldn't have seen the southern States,
chatted to dozens of people or enjoyed the excellent food.

Most Americans don't know what they are missing.



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

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1
06466433851281.xml

The Oregonian - Portland
09/28/03

Editorial

The only train out of town

it's Amtrak, and breaking up the national rail service, as some in Congress
propose, will take us nowhere

Passenger rail service has come to a fork in the tracks. One way leads to
a brighter future for passenger rail, the other to a dead end with few long-
distance routes and diminished train service.

The House and Senate are preparing to debate the future of Amtrak. The
choice is whether to invest in the national passenger rail system and allow
it to modernize equipment and build ridership, or slash funding, break
Amtrak into regional segments and require states to finance the service.

Congress should stay aboard Amtrak. None of the arguments for
dismantling the national system is persuasive. Neither is the vague
promise of large-scale state investment in rail. Oregon, for example, had
to scrape to come up with just $15 million promised to Union Pacific for
track upgrades. Besides federal grants, where will it get the money to run
a Willamette Valley service, let alone begin investing in high-speed rail to
Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.?

Amtrak foes in Congress don't believe in national passenger rail service.
They see little or no value in the long-distance trains that serve 500 cities,
most of them small, rural and remote, in 46 states.

Amtrak's critics keep propping up an unreasonable barrier, demanding
that trains -- and only trains -- pay for themselves. Automobile traffic is
heavily subsidized. Airlines are, too. But a lot of members of Congress
insist that Amtrak clatter along on passenger fares, duct tape and baling
wire.

Amtrak, supposedly a "for-profit corporation," played along with this
wishful thinking for years. Amtrak President David Gunn is refreshingly
blunt: Amtrak, he admits, never will be "profitable." Never. Of course,
neither will air service or automobiles.

Amtrak is receiving about $1 billion in federal funds this year, and has
asked for $1.8 billion to invest in track upgrades and new equipment. The
House has proposed cutting Amtrak spending to $900 million; the Senate
has set aside $1.35 billion. All those numbers pale in comparison to the
tens of billions of dollars showered on the airlines.

The final Amtrak budget will be settled in a House-Senate conference
committee in early October. If Congress agrees on a number less than $1
billion, the dismantling of Amtrak would begin. Other long-distance routes
would go the way of the Pioneer, the now-defunct Portland-to-Denver-to-
Chicago train. Scores of rural towns just like those along the Pioneer route
in Eastern Oregon, idaho, Utah and Colorado will lose passenger rail
service.

Some states would invest strongly in rail, while others, like Oregon,
probably would not. Regional trains would survive in the Northeast
corridor, the upper Midwest and, with luck, the Pacific Northwest. The
hope is that saving money on long-distance routes would free up money
for regional rail projects.

Well, maybe. But how is slashing federal support for rail and stranding
rural towns good transportation policy?

For too long, Congress has given Amtrak just enough to roll slowly along
but not enough to modernize and gather speed. This country needs a
strong passenger rail system, one that serves rural towns and inter-city
corridors.

Sidetracking Amtrak won't take us there.



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

The Star Online News
Thursday September 18, 2003

Over 170,000 use monorail in first 15 days

BY LEONG SHEN-Li

PETALING JAYA: Kuala Lumpur's monorail system has ferried over
170,000 during the first 15 days of operations, KL Monorail Systems Sdn
Bhd managing director Bakhtiar Jamilee said.

"The volume is very good considering that passenger services are limited
to between 10am and 3pm at the moment. We are very happy to get such
numbers just with the lunch-time crowd," he said.

He added that the busiest stations were the interchanges with other rail-
based public transport systems, such as Titiwangsa and Hang Tuah
(transfer stations for Starline light rail transit system), Bukit Nanas
(transfer station for Putraline LRT) and KL Sentral (for KTM, Putraline and
trains to KL international Airport).

Other stations in the "Golden Triangle" like Raja Chulan had also been
very crowded with office workers.

"Our KL Sentral station is the busiest with between 2,500 and 3,500
commuters using it daily," he said when contacted yesterday.

The RM1.2bil Malaysian-made monorail system – which is seen as the
"missing link" in the city's rail-based public transport network – stretches
for 8.6km from Titiwangsa in Jalan Tun Razak to KL Sentral in Jalan Tun Sambanthan and has 11
stations.

It was opened on National Day by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad. Passengers only need to pay RM1 for each ride irrespective of
distance.

When full fare is charged, commuters will be paying between RM1.20 and
RM2.50.

Bakhtiar said operating hours were expected to be extended next month
to between 8am and 7pm.

"The hours will then be extended progressively. Ultimately, trains will run
between 6am and midnight."

He said five trains were being used at the moment, while new trains were
being tested on the tracks at night.





PTP 2003/09/27-A - CONTENTS

* Sacramento: 'New vista for light rail'
   Sacramento Bee Saturday, September 27, 2003

* Houston: City planners seek 'walkability'
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 26, 2003

* Houston: Metro wants transit plans put in MPO's plan
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 27, 2003


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

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7492010p-8434138c.html

Sacramento Bee
Saturday, September 27, 2003

New vista for light rail

1st new line in 16 years opens to fanfare

By Tony Bizjak -- Bee Staff Writer



Riders disembark Friday from a train at the Meadowview end of light rail's
latest expansion, from downtown to south Sacramento.
Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro


With hoopla and high hopes, Sacramento opened its first new light-rail
line in 16 years Friday, launching a fleet of boxy blue-and-yellow trains
between downtown and Meadowview Road.

The $228 million system appeared to run smoothly from the get-go, even
as politicians, transit officials, train fans and curious residents hopped
aboard the first trains by the hundreds.

Gevel Woods, a south Sacramento resident and student at Sacramento
City College, currently carless, pronounced the ride enjoyable.

"Darn skippy I'll use it!" he said. "This is much better than the bus."

Midtown resident Tom Prittie, recalling Sacramento's trolley cars of old,
wasn't as impressed.

"it's basically what they ripped out in 1947 and should have kept," he said.
He liked the roominess, but unlike others who found the ride smooth, he
said that "we were sliding left to right."

From its southern terminus at Meadowview Road, the new line follows the
old Union Pacific right of way 6.3 miles for a 22-minute excursion into
downtown, leapfrogging Florin Road on a bridge, stopping at Sacramento
City College and five other new stations.

it hooks up with the existing light-rail line at several midtown and
downtown stations. Its turnaround point is on the K Street Mall.

Sacramento Regional Transit officials project 8,100 weekday boardings by
2005, many of them people headed to and from work downtown.

in speeches that stretched through the morning Friday -- threatening to
put the new line behind schedule on day one -- transit officials and
politicians repeatedly encouraged people to give the system a try.

At the same time, they promised to increase light rail's usefulness by
turning the still-young, modern-day trolley system into a true regional web.
That includes extending the original light-rail line from its Mather terminus
into the city of Folsom by early 2005, officials said.

RT also plans a line from the K Street Mall to the train depot in the
downtown railyards.

As well, officials plan to extend the south line to Elk Grove, build a new
line from downtown to Sacramento international Airport, and are talking of
running light rail into Yolo County and northeast to Antelope.

Those ambitious plans remain largely unfunded. But RT General Manager
Beverly Scott said the system must grow to more fully serve people who
don't drive while getting others out of cars and off congested roadways.

Speaking to about 500 people at the Florin Station, Assemblyman Darrell
Steinberg, D-Sacramento, lauded light rail as an environmental plus.

"Each person who rides the light-rail line represents one less internal
combustion engine emitting pollutants into the air," he said.

Even if the line is extended to Elk Grove, transit officials project
congestion on Highway 99 and interstate 5 still will reach "failure" level at
times by 2015, meaning significant delays.

To entice people who don't live near the line, RT built free parking lots at
the Meadowview, Florin and 47th Avenue stations.

RT officials this week installed elevated observation booths for security
guards at the Meadowview and Florin parking lots -- painted beige and
sporting plastic flowers in window boxes.

"We're trying to soften the look," RT official Mike Mattos said. "it's to
protect people; it's not to be Big Brother."

RT is opening its entire light-rail and bus system for free rides today and
Sunday.

Ticketed rides on the new line start Monday. A one-way ticket costs $1.50.
An all-day ticket is $3.50. A monthly pass is $60. People age 75 and older
can obtain lifetime passes to ride free.

Mayor Heather Fargo was among those exhorting residents to ride the rail
line.

"Light rail is not a system for your neighbors to use to leave you a parking
space downtown," she said. "This is not for someone else; this is for us."

Fargo said she was struck by the amount of developable land near light
rail in south Sacramento.

"When you pass the Sutterville railyards, you see this big empty site all
the way to Curtis Park just waiting to become a neighborhood," she said.

Although the line has a stop at Sacramento City College, officials said
they do not know yet how many students will use it.

College officials plan to negotiate with RT over reduced fares for students.
Until then, students must pay regular fares.

College student Sam Maciel, books in backpack and waiting for an
afternoon train, said he will use light rail instead of the bus to get from his
Rosement home to school and hopes to cut his hourlong transit commute
in half.

"This'll be easier," he said.

Elizabeth Wagner, chairwoman of RT's disabled and elderly committee,
said the new cars are an improvement because they have more
wheelchair space.

"With (older trains), if there are already three wheelchairs on the car, you
have to wait 15 minutes for the next one," she said.

But a train every 15 minutes apparently isn't often enough for some
commuters-to-be.

ijanee Johnson, tucked in her aunt's arms at the Meadowview station and
waiting to be possibly the first 3-year-old to ride the south line, focused
her eyes intently up the tracks, fretting, "I can't see the train. I can't see
the train."



Ijanee Johnson, 3, with aunt Jewelle Baker, watches as the light-rail train
she had been awaiting pulls into the station.
Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro




Don Nottoli, Regional Transit board chairman, talks to 5-year-old Aaron
Wong as David Kennedy rides along with his bicycle.
Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro




At the new Meadowview station, Sacramento City Councilwoman Bonnie
Pannell is among those celebrating the first day of light-rail service to
south Sacramento.
Sacramento Bee/Andy Alfaro


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

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



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 26, 2003

City on road to 'walkability'

More development targets pedestrians

By MIKE SNYDER


The great messy spectacle of urban life washes over the pedestrian who
strolls down a busy city street, relishing the sights, sounds and smells of
its people and places.

Music spills out of a nightclub's open door. Fashions beckon from a store
window. Lovers stroll hand in hand beneath a corridor of trees. Shoulders
are bumped, handbags jostled.

And then there is Houston, where most everyone drives.

in his assessment of the "walkability" of major U.S. cities, consultant Dan
Burden ranks Houston second from last, surpassing only Las Vegas, in
public spaces hospitable to people on foot. In a recent local survey, 87
percent of the respondents supported efforts to make it easier to walk in
Houston.

Yet, however gradually, Houston is becoming more "pedestrian-friendly,"
the term used by urban planners to describe developments that focus on
people rather than automobiles.

Fountains and other amenities are emerging downtown for the benefit of
those who dare to tread, while support for pedestrian-friendly urban
design increasingly is surfacing in local planning. It is the key element in a
redesign of downtown streets and creation of a pedestrian plaza on Main
Street, and the driving force behind a proposed city ordinance that would
authorize creation of "area plans" with design guidelines.

Pedestrian-focused development is tied to broader efforts to reduce
suburban sprawl by building neighborhoods where people can live, work,
shop and enjoy entertainment within walking distance, reducing the time
they spend in their cars.

Beyond such practical considerations, those who want to create more
attractive places for pedestrians in Houston say there is something
inherently valuable about vibrant urban street life.

" 'Friendly' is the operative word in 'pedestrian-friendly,' " said Houston
landscape architect Kevin Shanley. "People want to be in an interesting
sensory environment, to see and hear and smell interesting things."

in Houston, a city that developed largely during the age of the automobile
and the air conditioner, walking generally is something one does on a
track or a trail, or to get from the parking lot or the driveway to the door. It
is not a vital part of daily life as it is in older cities such as New York,
Boston or Chicago.

Johanna Tchebull, who recently moved to Houston from Cambridge,
Mass., to work for the Houston Ballet, said she was immediately struck by
the absence of foot traffic on the streets of her new hometown.

"Everything is so car-centered," Tchebull said. "The first week was a little
hard because I felt like I wasn't going outside a lot. I was getting a little stir
crazy."

She and others who like to walk in an urban environment still find
opportunities somewhat scarce. But increasing interest in pedestrian-
friendly design in the Houston area is surfacing in a variety of forums:

· in Sugar Land, workers are nearing completion of the first phase of a
new "town center" project featuring a large central plaza, 17-foot-wide
sidewalks and other features designed to attract pedestrian activity.

· in near southwest Houston, residents are trying to persuade city officials
to include a grassy median in the planned reconstruction of Kirby Drive so
that people can walk from their homes to shops in the Rice Village. Village
merchants want to retain a dedicated left-turn lane on that stretch of Kirby,
setting up a conflict between the interests of pedestrians and motorists.

· in downtown Houston, business leaders say completion of the Cotswold
Project, a redesign of Houston's historic center, will rejuvenate street life
in the central business district.

· At City Hall, redevelopment plans for the Main Street corridor and the
near northside include a strong focus on pedestrians, and supporters of
these efforts say the new area plan ordinance is an essential tool in
making them a reality.

· Along Buffalo Bayou, planners hope to create a number of walkable new
neighborhoods as part of the redevelopment of Houston's central
waterway.

interest in this type of development in Houston is growing as the city
matures, residents tire of long commutes from the suburbs and more
people move here from cities with a walking culture, supporters of the
concept say. Urban experts say walking creates the kind of human
interaction that is a key reason cities exist.

"In all great towns, villages and cities, human beings have sought to
create places to be that put them in touch with other human beings for
social or commercial reasons," said David Smith, the land planner for the
Sugar Land Town Square project. "We think of these as integrated public
spaces."

The first phase of the 32-acre Sugar Land development, which will include
office buildings, restaurants, shops, homes and the Sugar Land City Hall,
is scheduled to open in October. Its design will include walkways with
sufficient space for trees, cafe tables and four people walking comfortably
abreast, Smith said.

Trees, canopies and awnings will protect pedestrians from heat and rain,
project designers said. Such design features, experts say, make it
possible to create walking environments even in a region with cruel, five-
month-long summers.

"Barcelona and Madrid have the same climate," said Burden, the
consultant, who promotes walkable urban environments in workshops and
on his Web site, www.walkable.org. "They dealt with it with good building
mass and good streetscaping."

Pedestrians in downtown Houston, of course, famously escape the heat
by slipping into the tunnel system, which started in the 1930s as a means
of connecting two movie theaters and has grown to a six-mile labyrinth
connecting dozens of shops, restaurants and other businesses.

While the tunnel system was once an attractive novelty, its growth has
choked off street-level retail business downtown, said Jodie Sinclair,
spokeswoman for the Houston Downtown Management District.

"It just sucks people right off the street like a giant vacuum," Sinclair said.

Sinclair and other downtown boosters say the Cotswold project,
scheduled for completion early next year, will get people out of the tunnels
and back onto the streets. A key element will be the three-block Main
Street Square, one block of which will be closed to vehicles.

While no one expects pedestrian-friendly development to trigger a
wholesale transformation of Houston's landscape, supporters say there is
a strong market for dense, walkable spaces along major economic
corridors inside Loop 610.

Richard Everett, chairman and chief executive officer of Houston's
Century Development Corp., said Houston's unregulated environment
makes it more challenging to create such developments.

"I can do a world-class job and all the people around me can put up junk,"
Everett said. The proposed area plan ordinance would help to overcome
this problem, he said.

Supporters of pedestrian-friendly design often are frustrated by how
slowly it is penetrating the Houston development culture. A frequently
cited example is the relatively narrow sidewalks built by Metro along the
route of the Main Street rail line in Midtown, which planners say is one of
the most promising areas to create walkable environments.

"it's coming, but it's real slow," said David Crossley, president of the Gulf
Coast institute, a nonprofit civic improvement group. He blamed Houston's
lack of regulation and an entrenched community mindset that focuses on
cars over pedestrians.

Downtown -- however belatedly -- the concept is in full flower, and leaders
of the Cotswold project promise spectacular results.

"There will be a tremendous amount of activity," said architect Rey de la
Reza, the project's lead designer. "The 'infill' will come in where there are
parking lots now. There will be a reason to come out of the tunnels, a
reason to walk, shade from all the trees, fountains, something to look at.
I'd venture to say after 10 years of economic prosperity, Houston will be
dramatically different.

"All of a sudden, it's going to feel like a city."


Chronicle reporter Allan Turner contributed to this story.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2122696



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 27, 2003


Council considers Metro plan

Expansion may be part of transportation blueprint for region

By LUCAS WALL


Metro's transit-expansion plan took a baby step forward Friday when the
region's Transportation Policy Council agreed to consider including it in a
long-range planning blueprint.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority must still win voter approval, and go
through a public comment period and staff review by the Houston-
Galveston Area Council, before it can be inserted into the 2025 Regional
Transportation Plan.

The HGAC handles transportation planning in the eight-county area. Its
plan, required by Congress, outlines what projects Houston and its
suburbs want to fund with federal money during the next 22 years. The
HGAC plan covers all modes of surface transportation including freeways,
local streets, mass transit, bicycle trails and pedestrian paths.

Voters will decide Nov. 4 whether to endorse Metro's proposal for more
light rail, bus service, HOV lanes, and road construction and maintenance.
Even if Metro's referendum passes, the transit authority must still convince
the Transportation Policy Council of the plan's merits. The council
consists of elected officials and transportation executives in the Houston
metropolitan area.

Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, council chairman, remains skeptical
of Metro's plan. Eckels said the transit-expansion proposal will not
become part of the comprehensive regional plan until it undergoes critical
scrutiny by voters and HGAC transportation planners.

"We're not taking a position on it yet," Eckels said. "Metro has stated
publicly its plan does nothing to relieve congestion in the region. The
Transportation Policy Council and I -- our regional mobility plan -- are
focused on congestion relief."

Metro officials argue the transit plan will keep up with projected growth.
Without more alternatives to driving alone, they say, traffic will only get
worse.

But Eckels said that's not good enough for him and other council
members.

"Metro has focused on transit, not regional mobility," he said. "We're trying
to integrate all the plans to find the solutions that can deliver the most for
the community for the least possible dollars."

The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan will be released for public
comment in November, and a final vote of the Transportation Policy
Council is scheduled for December.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2123780







PTP 2003/09/26-C - CONTENTS

* Sacramento: New LRT South Line debuts
   Sacramento Bee Friday, September 26, 2003

* Sacramento Bee ed: Praise for South Line
   Sacramento Bee Friday, September 26, 2003

* Ottawa commits C$300 million toward $1.7-billion rail project
   Vancouver Sun  Tuesday, August 26, 2003

* Seattle P-I ed: Need to route monorail through Seattle Center
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, September 26, 2003

* Pro & con: Route monorail through Seattle Center?
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, September 26, 2003

* Segway scooters recalled - low battery may cause fall
   Los Angeles Times September 26, 2003

* SF adds two fuelcell cars to city fleet
   San Francisco Chronicle September 26, 2003


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

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7485455p-8427622c.html

Sacramento Bee
Friday, September 26, 2003

Light-rail line debuts in south Sacramento

By Tony Bizjak -- Bee Staff Writer

The $222 million new light-rail transit line from downtown to south
Sacramento launched Friday amid speeches and fanfare.

Lauded by Sacramento Regional Transit officials as another step away
from reliance on cars, the line began its official run at 1 p.m.

Hoping to encourage ridership, RT officials are offering free rides on the
new line Friday, and will open their entire bus and light-rail system for free
rides Saturday and Sunday.

The new line connects downtown with seven south area stops. Those are,
from north to south, Broadway, 4th Avenue at Freeport Boulevard,
Sacramento City College at Sutterville Road, Fruitridge Road, 47th
Avenue, Florin Road, and Meadowview Road.

The line connects in midtown and downtown with the original 16-year-old
light rail line that runs from Watt Avenue and interstate 80, through K
Street Mall, and on to Mather Field.

"Today is a great day for Meadowview, the city of Sacramento, Regional
Transit and the region as a whole," City Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell
said during inaugural ceremonies Friday morning at the Meadowview
Station. "This station is a symbol of the economic revitalization of south
Sacramento."

Others speakers noted that RT intends to extend light rail by early 2005 to
the city of Folsom, and after that, build a line from downtown to
Sacramento international Airport.

RT officials say they expect the south Sacramento line to be used for
more than 8,000 daily boardings by 2005.

Service for pay, at $1.50 a ride, begins Monday. Monthly passes cost $60.

The line, which runs north-south along the Union Pacific right of way, is
the first new light-rail line since RT opened initial service in Sacramento in
1987.

Concerned as well about security issues, RT officials this week installed
platforms for guards in two park-and-ride lots next to stations, at
Meadowview and Florin roads, and have increased RT's transit officer
force.

The project took an estimated 500 workers some 1,300 days of
construction.



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

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/7485365p-8427515c.html

Sacramento Bee
Friday, September 26, 2003

Editorial: Welcome aboard

RT's South Line opens

Bee Editorial Staff

Regional Transit's much anticipated South Line, the light rail extension
from downtown to Meadowview, opens to passengers today.

Congratulations are in order.

Former General Manager Pilka Robinson deserves special attention.
Without her tenacity, vision and savvy, it is unlikely that the gleaming
trains now rolling down 6.3 miles of new track through some of the most
transit-dependent communities in the region could have been built.


According to Beverly Scott, the general manager who succeeded
Robinson just more than a year ago, RT's staff will be everywhere in the
coming weeks to help passengers navigate the new line. At $222 million it
is one of the biggest transportation infrastructure projects in the region in
recent years. In a series of test runs with transit activists, the new system
has gotten consistently positive reviews. The seven new stations are airy,
attractive and colorful additions to the urban landscape. The new cars are
an improvement over the originals, with wider aisles and increased
capacity for bicycles.

More attention has been given to safety as well. The new cars are
equipped with cameras and there are buttons that passengers can push
to alert drivers in the event of an emergency. More fare checkers have
been hired and, eventually, there will be more security on board trains, at
stations and in the park-and-ride lots.

Scott predicts the new line will add 10,000 passengers a day to light rail
by the end of the year. While the South Line will undoubtedly bring over
many bus riders to trains, RT's real challenge will be to attract new riders
who now drive to work, to school, to shopping and to other destinations.
Will commuters, particularly those from Laguna, Elk Grove and the
Pocket, get out of their cars and onto transit? The South Line increases
the chance of that.

To work well, to relieve congested highways, transit must become a
realistic alternative to those who can afford to drive. That will require
better service -- light rail cars and buses that are comfortable, convenient,
reliable, frequent and safe. The South Line is just part of the puzzle. More
pieces and more investment will be needed, but this is a notable step
forward.



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

Vancouver Sun
Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Ottawa agrees to pay $300 million toward the
$1.7-billion project

Jim Beatty

"The province is quite entitled to assume there will
be future infrastructure money . . . to draw from."

VANCOUVER (CP) - A key cog in the effort to provide a
smooth 2010 Winter Olympics was realized Tuesday with
the announcement that public funding is in place for a
transit line connecting Vancouver, the airport and
suburban Richmond.


"The RAV (Richmond-Airport-Vancouver) project is
proceeding as of today," said Doug McCallum, mayor of
Surrey and chairman of the Greater Vancouver Transit
Authority, also known as TransLink. "it's a very
exciting day for the region."


The expensive rapid transit line now has $1.2 billion
in secured funding, $300 million each from the federal
and provincial governments, the Vancouver
international Airport Authority and TransLink.


The additional $300 million needed to get the minimum
$1.5 billion required was to come from the private
sector.


Four short-listed companies have been selected and
asked to submit "requests for proposals," which are
detailed submissions that require the four companies
to submit plans for construction and technology, said
McCallum.


He expressed confidence the additional $300 million
would not be a problem for the winning private-sector
builder.


"We've been assured of $300 million from the private
sector, which is within the range we've always said we
were looking at," he said.


The RAV line is a key part of the transportation plan
for the 2010 Games and also aimed at improving public
transit to Richmond, a city of about 165,000 just
south of Vancouver.


The line's route has been controversial with some
residents, since it will involve tearing up a broad,
picturesque boulevard from downtown Vancouver to the
southern edge of the city.


The B.C. government had initially requested $450
million from the federal government and indicated the
project could not proceed otherwise.


But McCallum and Ken Dobell, the deputy minister in
the premier's office, said cost-estimate reductions
assisted in getting the project to proceed regardless.



They said the project's estimated cost was reduced by
$50 million after that initial request, leaving the
federal government request at $400 million.


But although the federal government offered $400
million, the local authorities decided they didn't
want Ottawa to commit all its B.C. Infrastructure
allotment to one project.


The local authorities agreed to allocate $300 million
of the federal money to the RAV project.


"We didn't want to be seen as taking all the
infrastructure money (for one project)," said Dobell.
"We felt comfortable the $300 million would leave
money for other projects in B.C."


Dobell and Jane Bird, the project director, also said
they don't anticipate cost overruns, but if that
occurred they would be borne by the corporate partner
through contractual agreements.


"Contract documentation will place the risk of
overruns on the private sector," said Bird,
acknowledging that didn't apply to tunnelling, which
is still under negotiation regarding cost overruns.


in Victoria, NDP Leader Joy MacPhail was predicting
overruns and said the public needs to know all the
facts about the funding.


"He (Premier Gordon Campbell) has to release the
PriceWaterhouseCoopers study about what the cost
projections are on this," said MacPhail.


"He has to explain why the federal government is
assuming no risk of cost overruns."


There has been too much secrecy surrounding the
project, she said.


"The facts around this have been kept secret," said
MacPhail. "TransLink won't release the studies, even
to their own board members. Mr. Campbell has released
no studies to show the viability of this project."


James Moore, the Canadian Alliance transport critic,
suggested the federal contribution was inadequate.


"In 2002, B.C. motorists paid Ottawa roughly $750
million in federal fuel taxes and an additional $378
million in GST on that fuel, making Ottawa's total tax
bite just over $1.1 billion in 2002 alone," he said.


Last year, Ottawa returned only $37 million to British
Columbia for infrastructure improvements, said Moore.


"And we're supposed to thank Ottawa for this money for
the RAV project?"



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/141321_monorouted.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, September 26, 2003

Send monorail through Center

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Selection of the final route for the new Seattle monorail line is still months
away and -- appropriately -- will be based on myriad fiscal, technical and
legal factors. Until then, we can all do without the nostalgic nonsense
about "saving" the Seattle Center from the monorail.

Seattle City Council President Peter Steinbrueck has pulled back his
resolution to precipitously reject a monorail route through the city-owned
Center. Perhaps Steinbrueck has also rethought his hyperbolic rhetoric
about how the monorail would "ruin" the Seattle Center, "our most
cherished green space." (More than the Washington Park Arboretum or
Green Lake?)

Meanwhile, the public discussion continues about this and other route
issues along the proposed 14-mile line. Citywide public meetings are
slated for Nov. 18-19, followed by two months of feedback. January brings
the final staff recommendation to the monorail board, followed by more
public hearings and a board decision in February.

Sad to say, the opposition to the Center route may have less to do with
the monorail itself than with attempts to reopen debate over the Center's
future, settled a decade ago with the development of its master plan.

Legitimate flaws may be found in taking the monorail through the Center,
but for now the advantages are obvious and overwhelming. It makes far
more sense than gerrymandering around it. That alternative would make
the line more expensive and less efficient and the Mercer Mess even
messier, while severing the monorail's historic and useful link to the
Center.



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/141385_csound26.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, September 26, 2003

Puget Sound-Off: Should monorail go through Seattle Center?

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF


THE ISSUE

The question of whether the monorail should run through -- or go around -
- the Seattle Center has created an emotional debate.

Some say the monorail is more appropriate for busy Mercer Street.

Running it through the Seattle Center, they say, could be a distraction,
particularly during Folklife and Bumbershoot.

Others though, maintain the monorail could benefit the Seattle Center.

Running it along Mercer Street, they say, could create more traffic woes
and deter development.

What do you think?

Should the monorail run through the Seattle Center or around it?


YOU SOUND OFF



"Leave Mercer Street alone; it's enough of a mess as it is. We're trying to
improve it. Put the monorail through the Seattle Center on the northwest
route."

-- John, Seattle

"Everybody thought they wouldn't like the trains by Safeco Field, and
nobody complains now. They sort of think it's fun. I think it will be just fine
(through the Seattle Center)."

-- Peggy, Lake Forest Park

"It should absolutely go through Seattle Center. It's a faster route. The
monorail trains are very quiet, and the vast majority of the riders are going
through places that already have construction. The line won't be any more
imposing than the arch that already exists between the international
fountain and the theaters."

-- Derek, Seattle

"The monorail should definitely go though the northwest route. The impact
to the uptown neighborhood and Mercer Street are unconscionable.
Mercer Street is a scenic drive. The argument that it disrupts
Bumbershoot, Folklife and the Bite of Seattle is irrelevant, because they
are 10 times noisier than any monorail could possibly be."

-- Mike, Seattle

"We don't need something rumbling through the middle of the Seattle
Center. It's too nice a place for that. Make them go around, please. Thank
you."

-- Betty, Shoreline

"Century 21 was designed for monorails, so this seems like the most
appropriate place for it. It would be fantastic looking at the international
Fountain going through. Most people aren't aware of how much room is
next to the Memorial Stadium. It's really the best route. If anyone walks
the route, they will see that."

-- Wilbur, Capitol Hill


ABOUT THIS FEATURE


Each Wednesday, Puget Sound-off presents a question on an important
issue. Responses appear in Friday's P-i.


To leave a recorded message on an issue, call 206-448-8123 or e-mail us
at soundoff@seattlepi.com.


ON THE WEB


To read more about the monorail, visit seattlepi.com.


To view earlier responses, visit seattlepi.com/soundoff.





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

[BATN]

Los Angeles Times
September 26, 2003

Segway scooter recall: low battery may cause fall

Manufacturer Recalls Segway Scooters

By Jesus Sanchez
Times Staff Writer


The government today said that the 6,000 Segway Human Transporters,
which have been touted by its makers as a revolution in
transportation, have been recalled because riders are in danger of
falling off when the scooter's batteries run low.


The U.S. Consumer Protection Agency said that Manchester, N.H.-based
Segway  has agreed to conduct a voluntary
recall of the $5,000 product, which will be repaired free of the
charge. The agency said that Segway has received reports of three
injuries -- including one head injury that required stitches -- that
could be related to the problems.

introduced in late 2001 amid widespread media attention, the two-
wheeled Segway, which can transport a single rider up to speeds of up
12 mph, uses a gyroscope to keep steady. The Segway's prolific
inventor, Dean Kamen, has promoted the small, battery-powered Segway
as a solution to the nation's traffic congestion and pollutions
problems.


However, today's recall revealed that Segway may not deliver enough
power when the scooter's battery is near the end of its charge,
allowing the rider to fall.


"This can happen if the rider speeds up abruptly, encounters an
obstacle, or continues to ride after receiving a low battery alert,"
the agency said in its recall notice.


The government recall involves all Segway HT i167 models sold to
consumers. In addition, the company is including all e167 models sold
to commercial users and all p133 models sold to riders in test
markets.


The free repair involves an upgrade to the Segway's software.


The Segway has triggered controversy in numerous cities and states as
its manufacturer seeks government approval for the scooter's use on
public sidewalks.


California law classifies Segway devices as personal "mobility
devices," which are permitted on sidewalks, and not as vehicles. The
law leaves it up to each city to regulate or prohibit their use.



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

[BATN]

San Francisco Chronicle
September 26, 2003

SF adds two hydrogen-powered cars to its fleet

Alternative fuel vehicles roll into S.F.

S.F. gets a hydrogen boost

City adds two fuel cell cars to its fleet of eco-friendly vehicles


By Chuck Squatriglia
Chronicle Staff Writer


Two boxy little Hondas fueled by hydrogen silently brought the future
of transportation to San Francisco on Thursday, when city officials
announced that the cars will join what is already one of the largest
fleets of alternative-fuel vehicles in America.


San Francisco scored the cars in a deal with Honda of America that
makes the city the second in the nation to hop on the hydrogen
bandwagon -- and officials said it won't cost taxpayers a dime.


Although the two Honda FCX coupes raise to just 38 the number of
hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles tooling around California, advocates of
the technology hailed them as another key step in the development of
cars that might one day free us from petroleum.


"This puts the cars in real people's hands," said Jason Marks,
director of alternative fuels for the Union of Concerned
Scientists. "We are moving along the path to commercializing fuel
cells. This is but two vehicles. But they're two very important
vehicles on the path to what could be millions of vehicles in the
coming decades."


The announcement preceded the arrival at Crissy Field of 108
alternative fuel vehicles that spent Wednesday racing around infineon
Speedway at the Michelin Bibendum Challenge, the world's premier
green-car competition.


it also came just four days after gubernatorial candidate Arnold
Schwarzenegger embraced hydrogen as a way to cut pollution in half by
2011 and vowed to bring scores of hydrogen fueling stations to the
state if elected.


Although critics have assailed his proposal as impractical, it
underscores the mounting support for a fuel that emits only water and
heat. And while most agree fuel cell cars remain 10 to 20 years from
commercial viability, they are increasingly moving from the
laboratory to the road.


San Francisco joins Los Angeles in adding fuel cell cars to the
stable of vehicles employees use for city business. San Francisco was
an early pioneer in alternative fuels such as electricity and natural
gas, and adding hydrogen seemed logical, said Jaren Blumenfeld,
director of the Department of the Environment.


"We believe hydrogen fuel cells are not the answer for tomorrow, but
the answer for the future," he said.


The city will lease the cars for two years under a deal that is still
being finalized but Honda said would cost the city $24,000. Honda
will provide the hydrogen, and Blumenfeld said grants will pay for
the cars, which will hit the road in the next month or so.


Los Angeles currently has three Honda fuel cell cars and will add two
more in the coming month. Honda was happy to send a couple north
because it provides a chance to further test the vehicles.


"They're accumulating real-world miles," said Stephen Ellis, the
company's manager of alternative fuel sales and marketing. "(The
city) is using them like the average user would."


For all its high-tech gadgetry, the Honda FCX is perhaps most
remarkable for how, well, unremarkable it is. Aside from using
hydrogen to create electricity that drives a nearly silent motor
producing the equivalent of 80 horsepower, the car feels and drives a
lot like an ordinary Civic.


"That's what we wanted," Ellis said. "We didn't want it to look like
a science project."


Still, the car remains at least a decade from mass production because
the technology is outrageously expensive -- buying an FCX today would
run you about $2 million, Ellis said -- and there are only half a
dozen hydrogen fueling stations in California.


One of the biggest criticisms of fuel cell technology is the fact it
merely shifts fossil fuels from the car to hydrogen production and,
in the end, doesn't reduce pollution or reliance on oil.


San Francisco plans to get around that problem eventually by using
electricity produced by solar or wind power to extract hydrogen from
water, thereby creating a truly sustainable form of transportation.



E-mail Chuck Squatriglia at csquatriglia@sfchronicle.com






PTP Digest 2003/09/26-B - CONTENTS

* New Orleans: Canal streetcar startup in Nov., celebration Dec. 6th
   New Orleans Times-Picayune Tuesday September 16, 2003

* Seattle monorail: Design downgrades, tax extension 'not pretty'
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, September 26, 2003

* Seattle: 'Keep monorail clear of Seattle Center's heart'
   Seattle Times Wednesday, September 24, 2003

* Seattle monorail OK, just needs design cutbacks, more tax revenue
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, September 26, 2003

* Cincinnati: I-75 congestion fuels renewed push for light rail
   Cincinnati Post 09-12-2003

* Pittsburgh pol: 'Maglev doomed', focus on light rail
   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Friday, September 26, 2003

* Denver: Squabbles over TOD at Colorado LRT Station
   Rocky Mountain News September 9, 2003


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

New Orleans Times-Picayune
Tuesday September 16, 2003

Canal streetcar party set for Dec. 6

Service might start around Thanksgiving

By Frank Donze
Staff writer

Fear not, weary motorists, the "Nightmare on Canal Street" is almost over.

Regional Transit Authority officials have circled Dec. 6 as the day they will
officially return streetcars to Canal Street with pomp and circumstance
after a 40-year absence.

Daily streetcar service along Canal between the Mississippi River and City
Park Avenue actually could begin a week or two earlier, around
Thanksgiving, if all the bugs can be worked out.

Last spring the RTA had hoped to inaugurate the line Oct. 11. But a rainy
June and a desire to accommodate the busy fall schedules of politicians
and federal bureaucrats who plan to attend prompted the agency to delay
the ceremony.

Since work on the $161 million project began in January 2001, confusing
detours, street closings and construction debris have made driving on
Canal Street a torturous experience.

But by week's end, transit executives said, they will be finished laying
track and hanging overhead wiring along the 3.1-mile route.

"Starting next week, if we wanted to, we could push a car from one end to
the other," said Don Preau, the agency's capital projects director. "But that
doesn't mean there still isn't lots to do."

in the next two months, a battery of tests will be run on everything from
the track switches to the electrical substations that will power the line's
apple-red cars.

Of the 90 or so workers being hired to operate the streetcars, about half
are RTA bus drivers and half are new hires. As a result, a significant
amount of time will be needed for training sessions.

And though the heavy equipment will soon be gone, construction crews
will remain busy filling in under and around the tracks, building more than
two dozen streetcar stops and shelters, and landscaping the Canal Street
neutral ground.

Meanwhile, construction will continue through December along a 1-mile
stretch of North Carrollton Avenue as work crews complete a streetcar
spur that will link the Canal Street line with the entrance to City Park at
Beauregard Circle.

Preau said he hopes to initiate daily service along Carrollton by late
February.

The wild card in the mix is a separate $5 million, end-to-end resurfacing of
Canal Street being overseen by City Hall.

Weather permitting, the city's Public Works Department hopes to
complete its job, which includes replacing broken sidewalks, by the time
the streetcars are ready to roll.

Transit officials Monday said 19 of the line's 24 streetcars are finished,
with the remaining five in the last stages of assembly. All the cars are
being built by RTA workers at the Carrollton streetcar barn on Willow
Street.

Work also is continuing on a building at the rear of the agency's A. Philip
Randolph Operations Facility in the 2800 block of Canal Street that will be
used to store, service and clean the streetcars.

With space at a premium at the Willow Street barn, the RTA is storing 10
of the Canal streetcars under tarps on the track near the Uptown end of
the Riverfront line.

Details are still being worked out, but plans call for the RTA to sponsor a
morning ceremony Dec. 6 at the corner of Canal and Baronne streets that
will feature music, cheerleaders and speeches.

Plans to boost ridership on the first day of service are still in the
conceptual stage, but RTA officials said they plan to reduce the $1.25 fare
on the line to perhaps as little as 25 cents, about what a streetcar ride
cost in 1964, when the service was discontinued and the tracks ripped up.

To help promote the return of streetcars to Canal Street, event planners
say they hope to enlist local restaurateurs, merchants and community
groups to host events along the route.

Among the ideas being discussed are discounted meals, sales and free
samples.

For the foreseeable future, the Canal streetcar line will terminate in the
center of the street near its intersection with City Park Avenue. Just as St.
Charles Avenue streetcars do at their Carrollton Avenue terminus, the
Canal cars will simply travel in the opposite direction for their return trip
downtown.

But RTA officials say they haven't given up on the idea of building a
terminal to shield riders from the weather and allow for easy transfer
between buses and streetcars.

One possible site is a largely vacant parcel on the Uptown side of Canal
Street that sits between two cemeteries: Cypress Grove and St. Patrick
No. 1.

Officials have said such a terminal is at least two to three years away.

The Canal line streetcars will resemble the venerable green Perley
Thomas Car Co. streetcars that run on St. Charles Avenue, but with a few
notable differences, including the addition of air conditioning, a modern
propulsion system and hydraulic lifts on both sides to accommodate
wheelchairs. Installing those amenities on the St. Charles line would
jeopardize its inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.


Frank Donze can be reached at fdonze@timespicayune.com or (504)
826-3328.



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/141416_mono26.html


SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, September 26, 2003

Less cash won't stall monorail

Leaders show how it can be built, but tax extension would be likely

By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Monorail leaders yesterday unveiled hypothetical scenarios designed to
show that even with less tax revenue coming in, the Ballard-to-West
Seattle line can still be built.

But the hypotheticals aren't pretty. They assume that the expensive tax on
vehicles would remain in place for 40 years and tens of millions of dollars
would be shaved from the $1.75 billion plan voters approved last year.

Monorail officials said they're still months away from coming up with a
concrete plan to deal with the unexpected revenue shortfall. By releasing
the possibilities, Monorail board Chairman Tom Weeks said the agency
was trying to ease concerns the project could not be built because the
agency is collecting about 30 percent less in taxes than it anticipated.

"This is in response to the question we've been hearing for the past
month. With the lower revenue, is the plan doable?" Weeks said. "What
we wanted to do is show clearly, there are financial models and plausible
scenarios to complete the plan with the reduced revenue."

But the hypotheticals raise the question: Even if the project is financially
viable, will it be politically doable if the costs must be cut and the tax left in
place for years?

"Extending the tax for 40 years would not be feasible," said City
Councilman Richard Conlin. "If that were the case, we'd have to go back
to the voters."

in an interview, Weeks stressed the authority is not proposing either
scenario. He said it's likely the agency will have to reduce its budget, but
at this point there are too many unknowns to tell by how much. And how
long the 1.4 percent motor vehicle excise tax would have to remain in
place is still up in the air. For the owner of a $10,000 car, that tax amounts
to a $140 payment every year.

Weeks said even with cuts, the agency can still deliver what voters
approved last year: a 14-mile line between Ballard and West Seattle,
opening in 2007.

Although no final decisions have been made, architects are contemplating
replacing escalators in some stations with elevators. That would make the
stations smaller and reduce the amount of land the authority must buy.
"We've been pushing our architects and engineers to be innovative. And
this is an example, where it's good for design, good for transit. And by the
way, it's good for our budget."

The agency still faces several difficult decisions.

For example, the agency could save money by running the line along the
west side of Second Avenue downtown, instead of the east side of the
street. But that would bring opposition from powerful interests, including
Washington Mutual and the Seattle Art Museum, who do not want the line
running down their side of Second Avenue.

Saving money by running the monorail through, instead of around the
Seattle Center, would also inflame protests.

Even the theoretical prospect of hundreds of millions in budget cuts and a
tax that might be in place for decades worried council members.

Council President Peter Steinbrueck said that depending on what's cut,
"I'm very concerned project is still going to be integrated in the
neighborhoods along the way. Obviously we have to do this right or we
shouldn't do it at all."

During last year's initiative campaign, supporters said the tax could be
around anywhere from 25 to 40 years. Should the tax be extended toward
the longer end of that range, Steinbrueck and Conlin also worried winning
voter approval for a second line would be delayed if the authority has to
indeed leave the monorail tax in place for decades.


P-I reporter Kery Murakami can be reached at 206-448-8131 or
kerymurakami@seattlepi.com



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

Seattle Times
Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Guest columnist

Keep the monorail clear of Seattle Center's heart

By Dennis Haskell
Special to The Times


STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
A rainbow peeks through the spray at the international Fountain.


Ask yourself: Would Parisians consider for even one minute the idea of
running a monorail system through the heart of Luxembourg Gardens?
How about Londoners? Any guess what public opinion might be if an
elevated transit system that cut through the core of Hyde Park were
proposed?

Without a doubt, citizens in both places would take to the streets.

Yet that's exactly the kind of proposal the Seattle Monorail Project is
making: a route proposal that would significantly and negatively impact
Seattle Center and — in particular — the area immediately surrounding
the Center's treasured international Fountain area.

if we as local citizens allow this to happen, are we saying our premier
public parks and gathering spaces are less valuable than the ones we
travel thousands of miles to see?

Yet, at this very moment, the project's draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) calls for locating the monorail's guideway structure within
200 feet of the international Fountain. This structure would hover 30 to 40
feet over the tree and grass area that surrounds the fountain. Of course,
many of those trees would be removed if this particular route were
approved. The trains would run at four-minute intervals in both directions
day and night — that's right, day and night and within 200 feet of "your"
peaceful fountain.

if that happens, the area around Seattle Center's international Fountain
will no longer be the place it is today.

There is a much-less-intrusive option. The monorail could (and should)
run in the public right of way immediately adjacent to Seattle Center, not
through the park area itself. This is standard in the case of virtually all
urban public-transit systems.

As for economic realities, if we can afford to pay for running the monorail
through the public right of way in the real-estate-rich downtown core, are
we saying via this proposal that Seattle Center is less valuable and
therefore not worth as much investment and protection?

Here's the community reality: Over the years, Seattle Center, and its
international Fountain area, has become the place we go to celebrate
special achievements and to mourn incredible losses.

On a warm sunny day, it is a place where young and old can come
together and enjoy each other's company. On a rainy night, it is a quiet
haven where individuals can safely find peace and solitude. It is the focus
for festivals and activity as well as a retreat for quiet contemplation.

Do we really want to give this up?

This is not merely a rhetorical question, nor are such claims of importance
unsubstantiated.

From 1988 to 1990, numerous public meetings were held to gather
information on how people felt about Seattle Center and to learn what
they'd like to see happen there in the future. This information was to guide
the development of the current Seattle Center master plan.

What was heard most often was how important the international Fountain
and its surrounding space were. What was heard was that it should be
protected and preserved at all costs. Concept drawings prepared at the
time actually placed a heart at the fountain location to symbolize and
acknowledge the importance it held for people. Preservation and
enhancement of the international Fountain became one of the main
master-planning principles.

Today, it's not totally clear why such an intrusive route is even being
considered given the damage it will do. It appears the main rationale is
that it preserves a route through the Experience Music Project (EMP).
Designing the EMP around the existing monorail was a creative and
exciting idea; preserving it at the cost of significantly damaging the quality
of the international Fountain green space seems shortsighted. There can
be equally creative ideas from monorail architects for filling the gap in the
EMP that would result from relocation of the monorail.

instead, consider the benefits of an alternate route that would place the
monorail along Mercer Street and Fifth Avenue North. This provides better
access to Seattle Center in that it places a station on Fifth at Harrison
Street. This station would be adjacent to the EMP, one of the major
pedestrian entrances to Seattle Center. This route would also preserve
the integrity of our city's most visible and visited public space.

By snaking through Seattle Center and the international Fountain area,
the closest a station could be located is along Fifth between Denny Way
and Broad Street, a block away from Seattle Center.

Building the monorail "on time and on budget" is an excellent goal, but it
shouldn't translate to losing our public soul space at the same time.

if you agree, now is the time to make your voice heard.


Dennis Haskell has worked as an architect and urban designer in Seattle
for 30 years. He led the consulting team that produced the Seattle Center
master plan.



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/141327_monorail26.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, September 26, 2003

We can keep the monorail moving forward

By TOM WEEKS AND CINDI LAWS
MONORAIL ADVOCATES

Can you still build it? What is it with Seattle and transportation projects?
Will we ever get anything built in this town again? We believe the answers
are -- yes; don't know and you bet.

You probably know that the motor vehicle excise tax revenues funding the
monorail are coming in below projections, perhaps 20 percent to 30
percent. What you may not know is that the Seattle Monorail Project is
tackling the challenge of reduced revenues head on. We are cutting costs,
developing alternative financing scenarios and working aggressively to
ensure excellent design without being extravagant.

We are confident that, with strong cooperation from our city and state
partners, smart decisions and tough cost-control measures by us, the
monorail can and will be built. We are firmly committed to providing the
transit solution that the voters have asked for three times, and doing so in
a way that will serve Seattle well for decades to come.

in the plan approved by voters, the taxable value of vehicles in Seattle
was estimated to be roughly $4.5 billion. The first three months of
collections indicate a base value of $3.1 billion to $3.7 billion. Over the
next few months, we will narrow this range as we get more collections
under our belt.

in January, the monorail board will adopt a revised financial plan, with
updated cost and revenue estimates. Leading up to the plan, we are
developing scenarios that reflect our reduced revenues. In every scenario,
we remain committed to the following key features:


The monorail will be 14 miles, as adopted by voters.


The first phase will open on Dec. 15, 2007.


Excellent design will not be compromised.


System capacity will be greater than 20 million trips per year.

With that as the foundation, our revenues are sufficient to complete the
project by 2009 if the project is able to reduce the capital construction
budget by $300 million, or roughly 17 percent, with a 6 percent interest
rate, 3 percent inflation and 5 percent MVET growth rate.

if revenues grow at a higher rate or inflation remains low, the construction
budget would not need to be reduced as much. With a 6 percent MVET
growth rate, the construction budget cut would be 13 percent.

We control some of these variables, but not others. Starting construction
as soon as possible, for example, is a variable we do control and can help
us significantly by locking down low interest and construction index rates.
Another option would be to slow the pace of construction, which some
have suggested should be our response to reduced revenues.

These are the types of tradeoffs we will be discussing with the public over
the next few months as our board and panel of independent experts
evaluate the projections and scenarios. We will also be examining the
results of an external audit of the revenue base.

To get there, though, assistance from the state is critical. From the
Department of Licensing we need licensing agents to collect the tax on
out-of-state cars when they are first registered in Seattle. We don't think it
is fair that those who already live in Seattle pay the tax while those who
move here don't. The state could also help by taking steps to address the
evasion problem, in which car owners living in Seattle illegally license their
cars outside the city in order to avoid paying the tax. Again, this is a basic
issue of fairness.

To control costs, the city of Seattle is critical. In July 2002, the City
Council adopted a resolution to cooperate with the project, committing to
take timely action on monorail permits, to limit mitigation to project-specific
impacts and to provide city right of way for the monorail. City follow-
through on these commitments has been excellent to date. The city knows
that any delay in starting construction drives up costs. As well, our budget
cannot support requests for "Christmas tree" mitigation that goes beyond
the direct impacts of the project.

The project will need to make timely and cost-effective decisions. Each
month of delay, each section of additional guide way, each major
relocation of utilities adds millions of dollars in costs. Given the reduction
in MVET revenues, the project must make cost-effective decisions that
retain our commitment to excellent design.

The monorail can be built and built well. We have shown just a few of the
many feasible paths to that outcome. We will continue to explore these
before adopting our final finance plan.

Please be a part of this project by coming to our environmental impact
statement hearing Monday, which is co-sponsored by the Coast Guard,
with City Council participation, at the Seattle Center, or our citywide
meetings in mid-November. Seattle can accomplish this if we all do our
part.


Tom Weeks is chairman of the Seattle Monorail Project Board of
Directors; Cindi Laws is secretary of the board. For more information
about the financial scenarios, go to www.elevated.org



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

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/12/oki091203.html

Cincinnati Post
09-12-2003

i-75 congestion fuels push for light rail

Post staff report

A group that will decide next month how to alleviate congestion on
interstate 75 was told by an expert Thursday that widening the road and
adding light rail train service might be the best solution.

"Lane additions at selected bottlenecks together with high-frequency
transit may be the most efficient alternative in the long run," said Fred
Craig of Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., a firm that has been studying I-75
problems and possible solutions. Craig addressed the board of trustees of
the Ohio-Kentucky-indiana Regional Council of Governments, which on
Oct. 9 will decide what is the best way to try to keep traffic flowing on the
heavily-traveled freeway for the next 30 years.

Adding more lanes would only relieve congestion for about seven years
and then the highway would become congested again, Craig told the OKI
board.

However, he said, "a combination of highway and transit investments
provides short-term congestion relief that is sustainable in the long-term."

it would cost about $2 billion to add light rail and widen I-75 to four and
five lanes in Hamilton, Butler and Warren counties.

Paying for light rail, however, poses a special problem, noted Judi Craig of
OKI.

"Highways are funded with state and federal money, but light rail requires
50 percent local funding in order to get the rest from the federal
government," she said.Last year, Hamilton County voters defeated a
proposed county sales tax increase to pay for light rail by a 2-to-1 margin.

Judi Craig, though, remains optimistic that residents will eventually
support light rail.

"I don't think that in voting down a sales tax that residents were voting
against light rail," she said. "The campaign for light rail is a marathon, not
a  sprint. The need is clearly there."

But, just building a light rail system without adding lanes to I-75 won't do
much to ease congestion on the freeway, according to studies.

Cindy Minter of Parsons Brinckerhoff said that I-75 traffic will exceed
capacity by 28 percent in 2030 if nothing is done and would still exceed
capacity by 26 percent if light rail is installed without adding lanes.

However, she said, adding lanes and trains that leave every three minutes
during rush hours and every five minutes at other times would keep I-75
traffic within design capacity.

OKI board members will have a variety of options to choose from on Oct.
9, including adding no lanes or widening to four or five lanes with or
without limited or frequent rail service.

"A no-build decision is not a no-cost solution," cautioned Minter, who
pointed out that $482 million of maintenance on I-75 will still be required
through 2030.

in a separate action this week, the Ohio Department of Transportation
requested $155 million to help pay for several I-75 projects, including
widening 14 miles in Butler and Warren counties from three to four lanes.

The decision came despite an earlier determination by OKI that "four
lanes in each direction would not provide enough capacity to carry future
traffic volumes while delivering to the driving public an acceptable level of
service."

Ron Mosby of ODOT said he saw no conflict.

"If OKI recommends five lanes, then an additional lane can be put in," he
said.

"We're committed to working with OKI, but we know right now we have to
do something to improve the traffic flow," he said.

"Four lanes is a no-brainer. By adding a lane, we can alleviate congestion
at least in the short term. If we do nothing, then we just make a bad
situation worse."

Before the Oct. 9 vote by trustees, an OKI oversight committee will meet
Monday to discuss the options and meet again Sept. 29 to make a
recommendation to the trustees.

The options also will be discussed at three public hearings:

Wednesday at Lakota West High School, 8940 Union Centre Blvd., West
Chester; Thursday at Lockland Elementary School, 200 N. Cooper Ave.,
Lockland; and Sept. 24 at the Erlanger, Ky. city building, 505
Commonwealth Ave.

All of the hearings will run from 5 to 7 p.m.




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

Maglev doomed, Roddey says

He says lack of funding makes project unfeasible

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Friday, September 26, 2003

By Jeffrey Cohan, Post-Gazette Staff Writer


Allegheny County Chief Executive Jim Roddey advised members of a
business group yesterday to "forget about maglev," dismissing the
proposed high-speed train project as too costly.

"The federal government isn't going to pay for it," Roddey said, addressing
the Pittsburgh chapter of the international Association of Business
Communicators.

Roddey's view contrasts sharply with the position of U.S. Sen. Arlen
Specter, a fellow Republican who last month touted maglev as a potential
"bonanza" for the region.

A local business-government partnership is proposing a $3 billion, 45-
mile, magnetic-levitation train route connecting Greensburg, Monroeville,
Downtown and Pittsburgh international Airport.

The partnership -- whose members include the Port Authority, the state
Department of Transportation and Monroeville-based Maglev Inc. -- is
competing against a proposed Baltimore-to-Washington maglev link for
$950 million in federal funding. And a Las Vegas-to-Anaheim route has
begun to receive consideration.

But the Federal Railroad Administration has indefinitely postponed the
selection of the winning project and Congress has not approved the
expenditure.

The growing federal debt is fueling skepticism about the prospects for
maglev funding.

Roddey, who once supported maglev, now urges the Port Authority to
accelerate the planning of a light rail connection between Oakland,
Downtown and the airport.

During his speech yesterday at the Omni William Penn Hotel, Downtown,
the county executive lamented that such a connection doesn't already
exist.

"Today, we suffer from the lack of long-term planning," he said.

Allegheny County Controller Dan Onorato, who is challenging Roddey in
the Nov. 4 election, is still holding out hope for the maglev project.

"We need an answer from the federal government as to whether the
money is real," the Democrat said. "We can't go on wondering if it will ever
be funded."

Onorato agrees with Roddey about the need for a light rail connection if
the money for maglev doesn't materialize.

Specter, a senior member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations
subcommittee on transportation, has said he is lobbying other Congress
members to support Pittsburgh's maglev proposal.

He did not return a reporter's phone call yesterday.

Maglev Inc. Chief Executive Officer Fred Gurney called for patience,
characterizing the delays in securing congressional approval as normal.

"That's the nature of projects with the federal government," he said.

Gurney added that he hopes to re-enlist Roddey as a maglev supporter.

"We've been doing our darndest to cultivate political support," he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Cohan can be reached at jcohan@post-gazette.com or 412-263-
3573.



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

Rocky Mountain News
September 9, 2003

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_
2244794,00.html

Light-rail retail plan OK'd

Residents question blueprint to develop Colorado Station area

By April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News

Denver City Council unanimously approved a blueprint Monday night to
guide development near a light- rail station at South Colorado Boulevard
and interstate 25 despite objections that the proposal lacks teeth.

A handful of University Park residents urged the council to rethink
supporting the plan until the city can better address zoning, parking, traffic
and pedestrian-crossing issues.

"We're just looking at a framework plan for the Colorado Station," said
council member Rick Garcia. "it's essentially what we've been doing for
neighborhood plans. But there has to be a plan to get anything moving
forward. The specific answers the community wants at this stage will
come as we move forward with the process."

The city envisions transforming the land between South Colorado
Boulevard and East Evans Avenue into upscale retail shops, high-rise
offices, luxury apartments, lofts, townhomes and condos over the next 15
years to generate around-the-clock activity and light-rail ridership.

Residents complained the proposal gives the city little authority to enforce
the goals outlined in the 47-page Colorado Station Area Framework Plan.

"Without zoning . . . there's nothing to prevent an uncoordinated variety of
small shops and offices to collect around the light-rail station that will
prevent a single planned design and development," said University Park
resident Bill Winn.

A 40-member committee, including nearby residents, developers,
businesses, transit agency and city planners, worked on the plan over the
past two years.

"I'm confident the plan addresses transportation issues and provides
direction," said Janice Finch, senior planner for the city. "But it doesn't get
into the details of who's going to pay and what the development is going
to look like."

in other action Tuesday night, the City Council unanimously approved a
$140,000 economic development loan to cover cost overruns to renovate
M&D's Bar-B-Que & Fish Palace, 2004 E. 28th Ave., a family-owned
restaurant that has become a mainstay in the Whittier neighborhood since
it opened in 1977.The loan is in addition to a $900,000 federal block grant
loan awarded earlier this year.








PTP Digest 2003/09/26-A - CONTENTS

* Sacramento: New South Line LRT opens Sep 26th
   Sacramento Bee Sunday, September 21, 2003

* Sacramento: Grand Opening for new South Line LRT
   RT Press Release Thursday, September 11, 2003

* Seattle: issaquah Valley heritage trolley line takes form
   The issaquah Press September 24, 2003

* Seattle monorail: Community argues over route options, impacts
   West Seattle Herald/White Center News  2003/09/25

* Seattle monorail: More route squabbles as agency loses trust
   Seattle Times Wednesday, September 24, 2003

* Seattle: Residents fight planned switch from trolley buses to diesel
   TheStranger.com Vol 13 No. 2, Sep 25 - Oct 1 2003

* Houston: Mayor hopefuls debate LRT
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 25, 2003

* Denver Post ed: Keep FasTracks rail+road plan intact
   Denver Post  Sunday, August 17, 2003

* St. Louis: 10 years of success for Metrolink LRT
   St. Louis Post-Dispatch 07/31/2003


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

Sacramento Bee
Sunday, September 21, 2003

Light rail set to open in south Sacramento

The new line is first part of RT's expansion program.

By Tony Bizjak -- Bee Staff Writer


Amid high hopes and some worries, public transit in Sacramento opens
broad new terrain this Friday with the long-awaited launch of light-rail
trains from downtown to south Sacramento.
The $222 million project is the first new light-rail line since the system
opened 16 years ago. It brings what an official calls the "workhorse" of
public transit to a string of working-class south area neighborhoods.

"it's a big deal for south Sacramento," City Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell
said. "A lot of people don't have cars. A lot of people have been waiting
for this."

"This is a no-brainer; we need this," said Beverly Scott, general manager
of Sacramento Regional Transit. "In fact, this is the bare minimum we
need."

The 6.3 miles of new track, which make a beeline from downtown to
Meadowview Road along the Union Pacific line, represent the first section
of what officials say someday will be a commuter railway to Elk Grove.

it is part of a long-range plan by RT to offer commuters an alternative to
the congested Highway 99 and interstate 5 freeways.

in this first phase, the line's bread-box-shape yellow, blue and white trains
will feed an older urban area where bus ridership is strong, an indication
that light rail will be well-used from the start, officials said.

Scott said RT's estimate of an average daily ridership of 8,100 people
may be low. She is predicting 10,000 by the end of the first year.

But there are concerns.

Transit officials said they know many people in the sprawling newer
suburbs of southern Sacramento -- such as Laguna and Elk Grove -- are
wedded to their cars. So RT is offering free rides on the new line Friday
through Sunday and free rides on the rest of the RT bus and rail system
Saturday and Sunday, hoping to boost interest in light rail.

Prices, as of Monday, will be $1.50 for a single ride, $3.50 for an all-day
ticket and $60 for a monthly pass. Total travel time, including stops, from
the Meadowview Road terminus to the end of the line at K Street Mall is
22 minutes.

RT officials said they also are aware some people are concerned about
personal safety along the RT system.

Scott said the agency is committed to boosting security. That includes a
new ordinance banning anyone without a ticket from loitering at a station,
more fare checkers on trains, and, in a few months, more security police.

RT board member Pannell said she has her fingers crossed that people
will give the trains a try and that RT will succeed in making the experience
pleasant for riders.

She said RT needs to reassure people their cars will be safe in the three
south area park-and-ride lots -- at the Meadowview, Florin and 47th
Avenue stations. The agency plans to have observation platforms for
security guards installed in the Meadowview and Florin lots by Friday.

"We want to make sure people from Elk Grove feel comfortable enough to
park their cars and know the car will be there when they get back,"
Pannell said.

The new line and its stations were designed as upgrades in look and
quality over the original 1987 line, officials said.

That original line, now 20 miles long, has a weekday ridership of nearly
32,000. Downtown is the nexus, with spoke lines along the Capital City
Freeway corridor to Watt Avenue, and along the eastern Folsom
Boulevard corridor to the Mather Field/Mills terminus.

it will link with the new line at six downtown stations, including at K Street
Mall.

Residents who have been taken on preview "VIP" rides of the new south
line report they are impressed.

"They've done a great job," Gary Hodges of the south area Olive Orchard
neighborhood said during a recent ride. "I've never used light rail, but now
that it's coming to our neighborhood, I really think we'll use it. It saves
parking hassles downtown."

Joe O'Bannon of the Greater Broadway Partnership said he is hopeful the
Broadway station will bring more pedestrians to that area's restaurant
district.

The architecture and artwork at the seven new south line stations also are
getting rave reviews.

"it's simple but beautiful," Sacramento city planning commissioner Debra
Jones said after a recent ride. Jones was the original RT project manager
during planning and said she is pleased with how the project came out. "it
is very much about people."

To avoid potential traffic and safety issues, RT built a $7 million "flyover"
light-rail bridge at Florin Road near Luther Burbank High School. The
tracks also scoot under Sutterville Road just south of the Sacramento City
College station.

But like the Union Pacific trains, they will cut across traffic lanes at 47th
Avenue, Fruitridge Road, 21st Avenue and on Broadway.

Notably, this phase of the light-rail line is not expected to have much
impact on traffic congestion on Highway 99 and interstate 5 in the south
area, RT spokesman Mike Wiley said.

The terminus station at Meadowview is more than a mile away from both
freeways, and the Florin station is many blocks west of Highway 99.

For now, Regional Transit will continue running express buses from Elk
Grove on Highway 99.

Ultimately, RT officials hope an extension of light rail into Elk Grove, and
closer to Highway 99, will entice more commuters out of their cars.

Even with a light-rail line to Elk Grove, growth in the south area is
projected by 2015 to push the freeways at times to "failure" status,
meaning congestion that causes significant delays.

As congestion increases, transportation planners say, light rail will
become more important.

"You need to offer an attractive alternative for people who may be getting
sick and tired of sitting in cars in traffic," Jones said.

RT has ambitious plans for expansion in the coming decade:

* A $230 million extension of the eastern or Folsom corridor line is under
way. It will add 11 miles of track and 10 stations from Mather Field to
Folsom's historic district. That project includes a spur line from K Street
Mall downtown to the I Street Amtrak Depot.

* RT is studying alignments for a fourth light-rail line from the Amtrak
depot downtown through Natomas to Sacramento international Airport.

* Officials are talking about extending the Watt Avenue line north to
Antelope Road, and adding a line into West Sacramento.

"The key is the holistic nature of the system," RT general manager Scott
said. But, she said, "you need a high-capacity workhorse as a foundation
for the system. That's light rail."

Cities began building light-rail systems at the end of the 1970s in
response to congestion and pollution. In North America, 26 urban areas
now have light-rail systems.

in Sacramento, the trains are the modern-day successors to the trolleys
that rolled through neighborhoods in Oak Park, Curtis Park and east
Sacramento, before succumbing to cars after World War II.

One transit skeptic, Gene Berthelsen of Sacramento, a retired state
Department of Transportation official, said that in failing to build new
freeways in recent decades, Sacramento planners are denying the reality
that cars are the most useful means of getting around.

"Obviously there are problems with cars," Berthelsen said, "but
Sacramento has turned a blind eye ... for the last 30 years" to the
possibility of new freeways.

He is countered by planners who say Sacramento still is interested in
building roadways, but that light rail is destined to play a bigger role.

in any case, Sacramento legally can't build a new freeway until it meets
federal air quality standards, said Martin Tuttle, executive director of the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

About the Writer

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



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

Sacramento Regional Transit District
RT Press Release
Thursday, September 11, 2003

RT ANNOUNCES THE GRAND OPENING OF THE SOUTH LINE LIGHT
RAIL EXTENSION

CONTACT:  Jo Noble
PHONE:  (916) 321-2863

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Culminating more than ten years of planning and construction, the
Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) will begin service on the new
South Line light rail extension Friday, September 26 at 1:00 p.m.

"Traffic congestion and air quality are two of the most critical issues facing
our region. Quality transit offers a real set of solutions to both,"said RT
General Manager/CEO, Dr. Beverly Scott. "At Regional Transit, we are
very excited to open this 6.3 mile expansion of light rail from downtown
Sacramento to Meadowview Road – both on time and within budget. This
is the first phase of our South Corridor project, which is being planned to
extend to Elk Grove."

To commemorate the grand opening, RT is planning a day of festivities,
including free rides on the new South Line beginning at 1:00 p.m. on
Friday, September 26, and system-wide free rides (all light rail lines and
buses) on Saturday and Sunday, September 27 and 28.

Opening activities include a kick-off ceremony at the Florin Road Light
Rail Station from 10:30 a.m. to noon, and a ribbon cutting ceremony at the
Sacramento City College Station at 12:30 p.m.

in addition, RT will host a community "Carnival" from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m. at the Florin Road Light Rail Station. The community "Carnival" will
include various stage and roving performers as well as clowns, face
painters and food vendors. Upon arrival, attendees will receive a South
Line passport to be stamped when they visit booths replicating each new
station on the South Line. Attendees can enter a prize drawing by
returning the completed passports to the RT Customer Assistance booth.
The festivities will conclude with a spectacular display of fireworks.

Starting with Friday's South Line light rail extension kick-off and continuing
through Wednesday, October 1, "RT Ambassadors" will provide
passenger assistance at all seven new light rail stations as well as three
new bus transfer locations: Florin Mall, Windbridge and Rush River Drive
and Cosumnes River College. RT Ambassadors will also assist customers
at two downtown transfer locations: 16th Street light rail station and St.
Rose of Lima Park.

"We are welcoming a new addition to our Regional Transit services, and
we want everyone in our region to help us celebrate and become familiar
with the new and more convenient travel opportunities this service offers, "
said Dr. Scott. "Our staff will be out there to lend a helping hand."

The $222 million South Line project extends light rail 6.3 miles south from
downtown Sacramento to Meadowview Road. The South Line is projected
to add 8,100 passengers daily to the light rail system by 2005.

For more information, please call 916/321-BUSS (2877). TDD 916/483-
HEAR (4327) or visit us on the web at www.sacrt.com.
 ###



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

http://www.isspress.com/back/092403/trolley.htm

The issaquah Press
September 24, 2003

Trolley: transit, tourism or both?

   By Larry Johnson



[Photo] By Stacy Goodman
Zach Washburn (second from left) gets help on his Eagle Scouts project
from other Skyline High School students in preparing the surface of an
issaquah trolley for painting. Lending a hand are (from left) Andrew
Washburn, Wally Skidmore, Brian Washburn, Jeff Skidmore and Domenic
Sanelli..

The double-decker Willamette Shore Railway trolley car clatters along its
historic right-of-way through a neighborhood of exclusive mansions and
past a discarded freeway bridge that's half-buried in fill dirt.

The railroad, seven miles long, has traveled along the Willamette River in
one form or another since 1888, and on this day, it is hauling 40-some
residents of the Puget Sound area.

While it's a tourist train, these aren't exactly tourists. Many of them are
from issaquah, and all of them, whether they're from Woodinville,
Redmond or Sedro Wooley, are interested in alternative transportation.

The trip, organized by the issaquah Valley Trolley (IVT), was put together
by local transportation artist and IVT official J. Craig Thorpe to take a look
at Portland's linked and much-lauded system of passenger rail service.

The Willamette Shore Railway trolley, with its historic cars bearing
authentic early-20th-century advertising placards, is the closest thing in
Portland to the issaquah Valley Trolley.

The Willamette trolley runs seven miles from near downtown to Lake
Oswego and back, and it's mostly a tourist attraction, its organizers say.

But the Portland trolley's backers hope that it can eventually be linked to a
regional rail system that has grown like kudzu over the past three
decades. The system includes streetcars and light rail, and it's a model
that some say is possible in traffic-choked Puget Sound. Some, like
Thorpe, see the issaquah trolley - once its three cars are running on a
couple of miles of local track - as a tiny portion of a much-larger system.

"This is Craig Thorpe talking now, not the issaquah Valley Trolley," he
said, "but sure, I can see a system that treads very lightly on the
landscape running from issaquah to Redmond and Woodinville - the
whole thing 20 or 22 miles long. The need for rail is legion. I don't think
that's going to happen next year, or anything like that. We have to go
slowly, and we can't bite off more than we can chew." Woodinville and
Redmond have, in fact, contacted the IVT to see if there is the possibility
of collaborating on such a line.

That's an attractive idea, said Thorpe, but not for a while. First, IVT has far
more modest goals.

in the shortest term, the organization wants to have one of its three
existing cars painted and looking nice for Salmon Days. Next, Thorpe
said, is a plan to get the track repaired and extended from the historic
issaquah Train Depot downtown to the Pickering Farm.

"After that, we want to get the trolley running on the mile of track we
have," Thorpe said.

The IVT has made a $250,000 federal grant application they're hoping to
hear about sometime this fall. And Microsoft gave the organization
$10,000 recently, which it will use for restoration of three cars and to retire
some debt.

The IVT is negotiating with King County for two miles of railroad right-of-
way, which would allow the trolley to the Microsoft and Siemens
campuses on Southeast 51st Street.

For now, Thorpe said, that's the plan, which would use rail already owned
by the IVT.

Starting small
"I agree with the short-term goals of the issaquah Valley Trolley," said City
Council President Fred Butler, who, like other council members, plunked
down his own $80 for the Portland trip. "I like the approach they're taking -
starting small is the right approach. It will promote tourism, and I think it
will help the struggling downtown attract people."

Butler cautions against getting too wound up about the trolley as an actual
way to move commuters around issaquah. But he sees potential for the
region - if only someday.

"I don't see it as a circulator in the near or midterm," he said. "If it ever
does happen, it's a long time off and it's not inexpensive. Let's go in small
steps and see how it works out."

Thorpe agrees that any kind of transportation isn't small change.

The cost to run the IVT just 2 1/2 miles to Microsoft is conservatively
estimated, he said, at $5 million to $7 million, and a track to Redmond or
Woodinville might be done for $60 million. Nobody with the IVT has any
notion, he said, of the trolley agency raising anything like that amount
alone.

"But the need is legion, and communities could work together," he said.
City Councilman Joe Forkner sees a regional effort as a possibility -
someday - but he isn't necessarily interested in an issaquah to
Woodinville route.

"I don't see that," he said. "But what I do see is that maybe, someday, the
trolley could possibly be a link to a light-rail system running from issaquah
and the rest of the Eastside to Seattle."

Greg Spranger of Mainstreet issaquah, meanwhile, likes a lot of things
about the trolley, and is enthusiastic about a loop running through
downtown issaquah. At the north end, he said, the trolley could attract
transportation-centered retail and high-density housing along the line.

"In Portland, I counted 12 condos with retail on the ground floor, and i
went: 'Geez! This is the concept. It's not just tourism, it's transportation,
totally. A lot of people didn't believe in the Portland system, either. And
now it's like a monster, growing everywhere. I know issaquah isn't
Portland, but as a region, Puget Sound is much bigger, and once the
Puget Sound area gets a taste of reality - that there's life after cars - that's
the kind of thing that's going to happen here."

City Councilman Bill Conley, who is a former Greyhound Bus passenger
agent, said it's obvious that alternative transportation forms will ultimately
be expanded in the region.

"Mobility is one of the keys to our economic future," he said. "We can't
pave our way out. The trolley in issaquah isn't the answer in itself, but it's
a way to show that alternative forms can be fun, and it's one way that can
add value to the various ways of getting around. The (IVT) isn't trying to
force things, but someday, somehow, there's going to be something to
Woodinville and something to Seattle from the Eastside. We need
Eastside leadership on this. I don't see the city of issaquah contributing
much right now, but I would hope we could help the IVT find ways to find
some funds elsewhere."

City Adminstrator Leon Kos said he has been hopeful that a light-rail
system could serve the Eastside and issaquah ever since he came here
26 years ago. "I'm a dreamer, and Greg Spranger and I have been talking
about that for more than 20 years," Kos said, noting that an idea Spranger
had to run a train from the depot at issaquah to a Woodinville winery
ultimately became the popular Renton dinner train.

There were too many obstacles for an issaquah-Redmond tourist route
back then, he said, but growth has made light rail much more attractive as
a true transportation alternative.

"I'm convinced the trolley is going to be a real tourist attraction," he said,
"but in the future is a very viable light rail, both as a local collector and as
a regional transportation alternative. If you give people the alternative,
they'll use it. What makes more sense than stations along I-90? This
doesn't have to be a frivolous thing, and I think the potential for high-
density residential around 56th and I-90 is just tremendous.

"I went to Charlotte, N.C., and saw what the trolley did there. When they
reactivated the line and started running it, that became THE hot place to
be. They just run it a little ways, not much more than people are talking
about here. But it's full of restaurants, condos, entertainment and shops. i
don't think trolley here is a whimsical thing at all. Twenty years ago, i
didn't think it'd be 20 years before something like that happened here.
Now, I'm just afraid it might be 20 more years until it does. But someday, it
will."



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

http://www.robinsonnews.com/wsStory2.html

West Seattle Herald
White Center News
2003/09/25

Monorail route worries many

By Tim St. Clair

People living and working in the vicinity of 35th Avenue and Southwest
Avalon Way met to discuss the monorail station planned for the area, but
they were more concerned about the monorail's route through their
neighborhood than the station.


Residents are worried about losing their views to the monorail guideway
and its 65-foot-tall station. There was distress about losing already-scarce
street parking to monorail riders.


Some people called for parking facilities to be built at the 35th and Avalon
station. They discounted planners' assertions that people will ride buses
to get to monorail stations.


"I certainly wouldn't take a bus to take a monorail," a woman said. "I'd
rather be in my car listening to my CD."

There also was uneasiness at the meeting about tax collection from the
motor-vehicle excise tax, which was set up to fund construction and
operation of the monorail. Revenue has been 11 percent to 30 percent
lower than anticipated, although it's been in effect only three months.


About 30 people attended the Sept. 18 meeting, which was held in the
American Legion Hall on Alaska Street.


Planners, surveyors and geotechnical engineers have been examining
two basic routes to get from 35th Avenue and Avalon Way to Alaska
Street and on to the Junction.


One plan would bring the monorail westbound up Avalon Way, across
35th Avenue and on to Fauntleroy Way, where it would bend southward.
The station would be on Avalon Way just west of 35th Avenue.


The guideway could run along either side of Fauntleroy Way, from Avalon
Way to Alaska Street. Both sides of the street are being studied. This is
named as the preferred route in the monorail's draft environmental impact
statement.


The other route option through the neighborhood that's being analyzed
would bring the monorail up Avalon Way, but it would turn south at 35th
Avenue. The monorail guideway would climb the incline of 35th and turn
west at Alaska Street for the run toward the Junction. A station could be
built on the east side of 35th Avenue near West Seattle Stadium and the
West Seattle Golf Course.


The 35th Avenue route would be a bit faster because the guideway would
require two curves as opposed to three curves in the Fauntleroy Way
option.


if the 35th Avenue option were picked, the Monorail Project might have to
purchase the vacant lot at the southeast corner of its intersection with
Avalon Way, said Josh Stepherson, monorail representative for West
Seattle. The guideway would have to make a right-angle turn from Avalon
Way to 35th Avenue there. The property could be resold later if needed.


Some of the people at the meeting urged that the monorail be built on
Fauntleroy Way because 35th Avenue is more residential.


More residents means more need for street parking, said a woman in
favor of the Fauntleroy Way route. If the monorail route goes up 35th,
some street parking will be lost to the guideway columns along the north
curb of Alaska Street.


A man disagreed and urged that the route should go along 35th and then
Alaska Street. If built on Fauntleroy Way, he said, the monorail would
eliminate a lane of traffic on the busiest street in West Seattle.


Steve Huling, head of Huling Bros. car dealerships, said his business
would definitely be affected by the monorail no matter which route is
selected. Both of the basic routes would separate Huling car lots from
each other.


it's difficult to put a specific monetary value on the effect the monorail will
have on West Seattle businesses, Huling said. But he pointed out that
Huling Bros. employs about 200 people and pays approximately $9 million
a year in taxes.
"Don't kill the golden goose," he said.


A woman wondered if she would be compensated for the loss of her view
to the monorail.


"it's an elevated system," Stepherson replied. "The monorail will impact
views, just like the new (six-story Merrill Gardens) assisted-living building
impacts views."


Stepherson said the five issues mentioned most often in public comments
so far have been, in order, parking, traffic flow, visual impacts, business
displacement and noise.


Public comments on the monorail's draft environmental-impact statement
are being taken until Oct. 14. The Web site is www.elevated.org

Tim St. Clair can be reached at 932-0300 or tstclair@robinsonnews.com.



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001743327_monorail24
m.html

Seattle Times
Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Monorail agency eyes new site for station near Seattle Center

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

The Seattle Monorail Project is considering a new station site near Seattle
Center that would keep passengers out of the hazardous intersection of
Fifth Avenue North and Broad Street.

Trains would stop west of Fifth, on a triangular piece of land that is
currently a parking lot. There could be a sky bridge over Broad into the
center grounds, as well as a large overhead walkway or mezzanine
spanning Fifth.

The monorail agency might also try to add a small storage track, so extra
trains are positioned to whisk crowds away from big events.

The triangle site would fit with either of two possible monorail alignments
through the area: the "Northwest Route" winding through the center
grounds, or the longer "Mercer Route" that skirts the center and follows
streets to the north.

The new site was briefly described during a Seattle City Council
committee meeting yesterday.

it would address a major problem with earlier versions of the Northwest
Route, which showed a station at the southeast corner of Fifth and Broad.
Seattle Center director Virginia Anderson has favored going through the
center grounds, but also raised concerns about families crossing two busy
streets.

The committee postponed a vote on a resolution by Councilman Peter
Steinbrueck opposing the route through the center.

"I don't like it, myself," Councilman Jim Compton said of the Northwest
Route. But he said the council should learn more about differences
between the two alignments in cost and monorail travel times, as well as
the effects on Mercer Street and center theatres.

A new "quick comparison" by the monorail agency says the Northwest
Route would be 30 seconds faster and $10 million to $16 million cheaper
to build than the Mercer Route, which is 1,500 feet longer.

Supporting documents were unavailable yesterday, but monorail
spokesman Paul Bergman said more information will be provided today.
Last winter, the difference was thought to be 25 seconds and about $7
million.

Some council members seem increasingly skeptical about monorail
information in the wake of recent findings that the project's tax revenue is
coming in much lower than forecast. Councilman Richard Conlin said the
timing of new cost numbers, issued just before a scheduled council
committee vote, "doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the objectivity of
the information of the project."

Monorail spokesman Bergman replied that the agency is continuously
releasing new data on the fast-moving project whenever it arrives.

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



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

http://www.thestranger.com/current/other_news.html

TheStranger.com
Vol 13 No. 2, Sep 25 - Oct 1 2003

Diesel Debate

Capitol Hill residents are fuming about a King County Metro decision to
switch from electric to diesel along three major bus routes on the hill.
Starting on September 27, Metro will replace weekend electric trolley
buses along bus lines 7, 43, and 44 with newer, louder diesel buses until
2005. Growing budget concerns, coupled with the high breakdown rate of
the trolleys, led Metro staff to implement the cost-conscious decision,
which will save $450,000 by Metro's estimates. Some Capitol Hill
community members are upset, however, seeing the new buses as
threats to the success of a neighborhood that thrives on outdoor cafes
and weekend activities.

They've found an ally in Capitol Hill representative Ed Murray, who wrote
a blunt letter on September 4 to King County Executive Ron Sims, asking
him to reverse the "shortsighted decision." MAHRYA DRAHEIM



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 25, 2003


Mayor hopefuls stay clear of mud

Debate focuses on light rail issue

By JOHN WILLIAMS
Houston Chronicle Political Writer

An unconventional mayoral debate with few rules remained civil Thursday
night as candidates Orlando Sanchez, Sylvester Turner and Bill White
stayed with the issues rather than attacking one another.

The debate, which left the candidates to themselves without a moderator
or panel, turned largely into a forum on rail versus roads.

On one side, Turner and White both endorsed Metro's Nov. 4 transit
referendum that would expand its rail system as an important part of
building a complete transportation system that includes roads and buses.

On the other side, Sanchez argued that Metro's proposal is too costly and
doesn't reduce congestion. Instead, he argued the region should
concentrate on building more roads.

At times, White and Turner double-teamed Sanchez, the only major
candidate to oppose the referendum that includes a $640 million bond
issue to fund 22 miles of rail extending the 7.5-mile system nearing
completion between downtown and Reliant Park.

"If we don't get a start on new mass transit, in 10 years, we'll be left
behind all other major cities in the United States," White said.

Turner agreed, saying that Sanchez's proposal to rely on building roads to
ease congestion would increase flooding and disrupt neighborhoods.

"Building roads in and of itself is not going to take care of Houston's transit
and mobility needs," Turner said. "We can take small steps or we can
take meaningful steps."

The experimental debate format -- called The People's Debate by its
sponsors -- threw the three candidates before a live audience with no
moderator, no opening statements and no time limits on responses.

The candidates sat around a small table with instructions to focus on two
pressing Houston issues, the local economy and transportation. In recent
years, Houston's jobless rate has grown and its traffic congestion
worsened.

A focus group will grade their conduct and accountability as part of the
debate follow-up. Although nine candidates filed for mayor, only these
three are drawing above 5 percent support in recent polls, the minimum to
participate in the debate.

The event was a production of Channel 8, Houston's PBS station, in
partnership with the League of Women Voters/Houston Area, the
Downtown Club of Houston, Leadership Houston and The Gulf Coast
institute.

The two candidates who have spent the most time in public office --
Turner, a 14-year state representative, and Sanchez, a former member of
City Council for six years -- controlled much of the air time, with White
sometimes excusing himself as he entered the conversation.

No one took any sharp personal or political shots, as each candidate
seemed uncertain exactly how to operate in the unusual format.

However, there were moments of levity.

At one point White suggested that Turner stay in the Legislature to fight
"for Houston as you have so well."

Turner responded, "I did my job so well I believe I deserve a promotion."

The candidates were less agreeable about rail.

Sanchez argued that the rail system will take too much money away from
roads. He said Houston lags behind Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth in
miles of highway per capita.

To solve that deficiency, Sanchez said, he would support a 100 percent
mobility plan the Houston-Galveston County Area Council is preparing to
address congestion.

"it's clear when 97, maybe 98 percent of the population chooses to
commute or take a trip by automobile, it is folly to take a substantial
amount of your money that could be invested in building (road) capacity ...
and put it in a (rail) system where the expected growth is minimal,"
Sanchez said.

White disputed Sanchez's math, saying that the HGAC plan could cost
between $25 billion and $45 billion over the next two decades, while the
Metro plan would devote $640 million to rail. "We've got to think of
something new," White said. "Houston invents itself every generation, it's
a work in progress and if we go along and don't get a start on a new mass
transit alternative and see how it works in 10 years, then I'm afraid we'll be
left behind."

There were disagreements between the two rail supporters.

Turner often responded that White did not fight hard enough for more rail.
While Turner said he will support the Metro referendum, he would have
favored a large rail plan, which could have been funded by taking half the
money Metro sends to cities and Harris County for roads.

He said White was part of back-room negotiations that reduced Metro's
rail plan from $980 million to $640 million.

White responded that the Metro plan is the more fiscally sound.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2120927



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

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~75~1571143,00.html

Denver Post
Sunday, August 17, 2003

Editorial: Keep FasTracks vision whole


The Denver Post strongly urges the Regional Transportation District to
remain committed to all the elements of its visionary FasTracks plan.

When fully in place, this mix of rail and bus rapid transit modes, high-
occupancy-vehicle lanes and other traffic improvements will boost the
economy of the Denver metro region even as it helps protect our air and
lifestyle from the ravages of traffic jams.

But FasTracks is a construction project - not a magic incantation. It won't
do any good just to read the words. And it takes money to pour the
concrete and lay the rails.

it's no secret that Colorado's economy is at a low point in its recurrent
boom-bust cycle. That's what is prompting RTD to consider scaling back
its 10-year construction plan from a $5.2 billion package to $4.2 billion. If
the agency's board approves trimming FasTracks' sails, the proposed
west corridor light-rail line would terminate at the Federal Center rather
than continuing to the Jefferson County administration and courts center
in Golden. The Gold Line would end in Arvada's Olde Town rather than
the Ward Road park-n-Ride. The proposed north interstate 25 rail line
would end at 124th Avenue instead of 160th Avenue, and the proposed
commuter-rail line to Boulder would not continue to Longmont as originally
planned. Finally, the existing southwest rail line would not be extended to
Highlands Ranch.

RTD would still acquire the rights-of-way to extend the respective lines to
their original destinations at a later point when finances permit. But we
think such a truncated plan would undercut public support for the
FasTracks concept and might lead the public to reject the proposed 0.4
percent sales tax increase necessary to finance FasTracks. Even if RTD
did win approval of the truncated plan, it would have to return to the voters
in a second election to approve restoring the items eliminated from the
original phase - even if an economic rebound means those items could be
financed without another tax increase.

As RTD general manager Cal Marsella admits, there is a fiscally
responsible alternative to such a two-stage, two-election plan. That
alternative is to simply ask voters to authorize the full $5.2 billion plan in
the initial FasTracks vote - probably in November 2004 - but to issue the
necessary bonds only as economic conditions allow. If the economy was
still flat when RTD reached the $4.2 billion ceiling, it would delay the final
projects until they could be financed within conservative revenue limits.
But if the economy recovers, RTD could issue the remaining $1 billion in
bonds without a second trip to the ballot box.

At best, an economic rebound would ensure RTD could build the whole
FasTracks vision within the original 10-year construction plan. At worst, it
might take a couple more years to finish the final stages.

in our view, mobility delayed is still better than mobility denied. RTD
should keep the FasTracks vision whole and adjust the construction
schedule as necessary to accommodate the ebb and flow of the economic
tides.




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

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
07/31/2003

10 years of Metrolink

By Jim Getz Post-Dispatch


Before the first section of MetroLink opened 10 years ago, its supporters
made several predictions about its success.

Although most have come true, the system continues to face criticism.

The first prediction was that the line would extend to Shiloh/Scott Air
Force Base by 2003. That station opened on June 23.

Another prediction was that about 35,000 riders would hop on the trains
each weekday in 2000. That figure turned out to be 32,000 to 33,000, a
figure that has held steady on the Missouri part of the line. After the St.
Clair County line opened in May 2001, 12,000 more illinois riders were
added each day.

To some local residents, MetroLink, a 38-mile track with 28 stations, is a
convenience and money saver whose time has come.

"I can avoid all that traffic when I go to work, and there are no parking
fees," said Wilda Tierney, an Army social worker, as she was waiting at a
downtown station for a train to University City.

Tierney, a veteran of nearly four years riding MetroLink, said most of her
fellow commuters are polite and respectful.

John Baricevic, chairman of the St. Clair County Board, noted two other
benefits to come out of MetroLink - less traffic congestion on downtown
bridges and the Emerson Park residential development.

"A less clear picture, but still important is (that we are) working across the
river and that a major investment in Missouri included illinois," Baricevic
said Thursday while attending the 10th anniversary celebration at Union
Station.

The milestone is the latest in a journey, that despite its successes, has
still drawn the same criticisms over the past decade: where MetroLink
lines go and how well the agency spends taxpayer money.

Critics say that transit-dependent residents in north St. Louis are deprived
of MetroLink services. However, MetroLink officials say that the bus lines
are designed to tie into the rail system. Despite a 10 percent schedule cut
of Metro buses in October 2001, officials say there are still viable bus
routes to MetroLink. Critics also argued that borrowing $419 million of the
$550 million cost of the Cross-County Extension, which is under
construction from Forest Park to Clayton to Shrewsbury, would paint
Metro into a financial corner and preclude building any other light-rail lines
for 30 years.

in 1993, the Bi-State Development Agency said it couldn't survive unless
the Missouri Legislature passed a one-tenth-cent sales tax to fund public
transit. Instead, lawmakers enabled St. Louis city and county to pass their
own sales-tax hikes the following year. An attempt at a further increase in
1997 sunk. But the agency has juggled its finances, leased out property
and cut the bus routes to balance the books.

Metro and regional officials have said they are pinning their hopes about
MetroLink on the success of the Cross-County Extension. If riders love it,
Metro officials believe they'll support another one-fourth-cent sales-tax
increase to further expand the system. If not, keeping Cross-County
running could be questionable after 2009.

Another prediction from 1993 was that MetroLink would foster more than
$1 billion in private development around its stations. And in a news
release about its anniversary, Metro lists 31 developments totaling just
under $2 billion in investment around MetroLink stations. But for nearly all
the developments, proximity to light rail influenced the decision to build
but did not determine it.

Some items on the list, such as street and sewer improvements around
the Wellston station or Washington University's new office and retail
building near the site of the future Skinker station, were the result of
government, university or Metro spending rather than private investment.

Some developments are only under way or not yet built. And only two -
the Parsons Place residences in East St. Louis and the MLP residence-
and-office project in Brentwood - have said that MetroLink was the
primary factor that determined where they would build.

One prediction that did not come true is that traffic congestion on
downtown bridges would become so bad that people would opt to ride
MetroLink. Delays average about 10 minutes most weekdays - and illinois
ridership has leveled, according to Metro reports.

The light-rail service may continue to expand. After advocates demanded
more service to north city, and West County mayors requested westward
service, the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council put out a plan in
February for two lines that would serve both.

As executive director of Citizens for Modern Transit, Tom Shrout believes
St. Louis County residents eventually will support more taxes to expand
the system: "I think the big thing in 10 years is most everybody in St. Louis
city and county feels like they have a stake in the Metro system."


Donald E. Franklin of the Post-Dispatch contributed information for this
report.

Reporter Jim Getz:
E-mail: jgetz@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8207


Jane Stone of Fairview Heights greets her 9-month-old daughter,
Gabrielle, and her husband, Todd Stone, at the MetroLink station in
Fairview Heights on Thursday.
(Teak Phillips/P-D)







PTP Digest 2003/09/25-A - CONTENTS

* Seattle monorail: Cost soars for Seattle Center re-route
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Tuesday, September 23, 2003

* Seattle Times ed:  Monorail project 'squeezed'
   Sunday, September 21, 2003

* Houston Chronicle ed: Small cities' bite of Metro revenue is too much
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 24, 2003

* Houston: Big-money campaign organizes against LRT vote
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 25, 2003

* Houston: Feds OK Metro's new ballot wording
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 24, 2003

* Houston: Mayoral aspirant Sanchez wants roads, not rail
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 25, 2003

* Houston mayor candidate White: Rail has 'key role' in growth
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 23, 2003, 8:51PM

* Houston: Mayor candidate Turner backs transit referendum
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 22, 2003

* Houston Metro board changes ballot wording
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 22, 2003

* Europeans fight air pollution with 'car-free' day
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 22, 2003


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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/140880_monorail23.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Monorail tab soars for skirting Seattle Center

By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The cost of running the monorail around instead of through the Seattle
Center has doubled since early this year, according to estimates released
yesterday by the Seattle Monorail Project.

Going around the Center along Mercer Street would cost about $10
million to $16 million more than going through it, said monorail spokesman
Paul Bergman.

in January, monorail officials estimated the cost difference to be between
$4.4 million and $7.7 million.

The new estimates came as City Council members prepared today to
hear council President Peter Steinbrueck's proposal to take the idea of
going through the Center off the table. The cost difference may be
significant, particularly because taxes for the monorail are coming in lower
than estimated, making shaving costs a high priority for the $1.75 billion
project voters narrowly approved last year. Steinbrueck questioned the
timing of the new figures.

"Clearly there's a campaign under way to defeat my resolution,"
Steinbrueck said.

Steinbrueck has said the monorail would "ruin" the Seattle Center, which
he called "our most cherished green space for public gathering and
reflection."

The Seattle Monorail Project's board is set next year to decide the 14-
mile, West Seattle-to-Ballard line's exact route -- including whether to go
around or through the Center. Bur Steinbrueck's resolution is significant
because the council has to approve any use of city property, including the
Seattle Center.

Monorail officials had opposed the resolution, calling it premature before
they do further studies of the pros and cons of the route options.

But Bergman said the agency has not taken a position on the Seattle
Center issue and released the information yesterday simply because
"we've gotten a lot of public requests for more information on the two
options."



Monorail officials, as they did in January, said going around the Center on
Mercer Street would cost more than going through the campus because
it's longer. They said also that the longer route would add 30 seconds to
each trip.

Bergman said the earlier cost estimate only examined the cost of building
the columns and tracks. The new, more detailed estimates also looked at
the cost of moving utilities and the extra trains that would be needed to
make up for the slower time.

The question of whether to go around or through the Center has created
an emotional debate.

Some such as Steinbrueck say the monorail is more appropriate for busy
Mercer Street.Heads of Seattle Center festivals, such as Folklife and
Bumbershoot, also have complained the monorail would be a distraction.

However, others argue that running the monorail through the campus
would actually benefit the Seattle Center because thousands of riders
would see what was going on. They worry monorail construction would
make Mercer Street even more of a mess, and would deter development
planned for the street.

Yesterday, John Coney of the Queen Anne business and community
group Uptown Alliance said spending extra to go around the Seattle
Center would be a "waste of public money."

Steinbrueck, though, said, "There are costs that are immeasurable and
intangible. ... To me, there's a choice. Does the Seattle Center become an
amusement park or continue being a precious piece of open space?"

P-I reporter Kery Murakami can be reached at 206-448-8131 or
kerymurakami@seattlepi.com



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2001738423_mon
oed21.html

Seattle Times
Sunday, September 21, 2003

Editorial

Monorail gets no more bites

The Seattle Monorail Project's finance committee has voted to pay a
California company $52,664 to explain exactly how the project
overestimated its tax revenues.

The Seattle Times story Sept. 11 — available for 25 cents — answered
that question in a general way. The monorail project had a list of what
appeared to be taxable vehicles in Seattle, but that included vehicles that
weren't taxable and vehicles that weren't in Seattle. The result was
roughly a 20 percent shortfall in revenues.

The issue now is not a mistake in the past. It is competence in the present
and whether the monorail effort is being run by people who will avoid
mistakes in the future. A separate, volunteer panel of four experts
checking future revenue forecasts may help.

But monorail officials should know that the public is short on tolerance for
big mistakes. Its tolerance has already been used up by Sound Transit.

it may be unfair that the public has a higher standard for monorail, but it
does. With the advantage of coming second, monorail can learn from light
rail's mistakes.

And monorail officials have encouraged such comparisons. They have
passed out little refrigerator magnets that offer one free ride on Dec. 15,
2007, the day the monorail is set to open for business. They have stated
that if they cannot build the monorail for $1.75 billion (maximum
borrowing, $1.5 billion), they will not build it at all. They have stated they
will not cut stations or shorten the route.

Now they are squeezed. But there are some offsets: The $1.75 billion had
$486 million of contingencies and inflation. Inflation has been low. The
construction market is depressed and bidders hungry. Maybe the 20
percent drop in revenues can be absorbed.

Monorail has one advantage over Sound Transit: it is not waiting for $500
million in federal money before it moves. There is no federal money.
Seattle is paying the bill, which means that Seattle people can control the
project. It is imperative that they do.




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 24, 2003

Editorial


BUMPER TO BUMPER

Metro road funds one facet of larger mobility debate

The property tax rates of 14 area small cities that receive road subsidies
from the Metropolitan Transit Authority average 45 percent lower than
Houston's tax rate, according to an analysis and Sept. 21 news story by
Chronicle transportation writer Lucas Wall.

These subsidies flow from Metro's 1-cent sales tax and are used by the
small cities for "general mobility" road building, repair and maintenance
rather than mass transit, offsetting millions in municipal operations and
allowing city leaders to maintain artificially low property tax rates of, on
average, 35.7 cents per $100 valuation. Houstonians pay 65.5 cents per
$100 valuation.

Whether the subsidies are fairly distributed has been a subject of debate
since voters approved them in 1988. Fair or not, Wall's story points out an
impressive imbalance.

The data show, for example, that Metro has given Houston a per-capita
average of $17.65 annually over the past four years, but has disbursed an
average of $107.14 per resident to its 14 small-city members. Houston
generates 91 percent of the Metro service area's sales-tax revenue and
has 71 percent of the population but has received only 55 percent of
Metro road money since the 1999 general mobility contracts.

Officials in the smaller Metro cities contend it's only fair that they get a
large share of road dollars because their residents have less need for bus
service. The fund transfers also discourage their withdrawing from Metro,
which would cost the transit authority its 1-cent sales tax in the small
cities.

But is the disproportionate subsidy fair? That's a question that must weigh
the benefits of region-wide participation in Metro against the needs of
people dependent on mass transit and those who are not transit-
dependent. They all share a common interest in reducing traffic
congestion and breathing cleaner air.

Less directly, though equally effectively, the debate hints at the
wrongheadedness of disparaging only certain mobility costs, typically
those associated with mass transit, while ignoring the massive tax support
needed to increase road capacity and maintain streets.

Metro at least is holding a vote Nov. 4 on its "Metro Solutions" plan, which
includes $774 million in new road funds, a $640 million bond issue for 22
miles of light rail and 50 percent more bus service. No vote was taken
before going forward on the latest expansion of the Katy Freeway, a
project that -- needed as it might be -- now is running $244 million over
initial estimates.

Likewise, the 170-mile Grand Parkway being built outside Highway 6 to
the west and planned eventually to encircle the entire Houston region,
was initiated not by voter referendum, but over substantial and ongoing
opposition to its dubious necessity and its potential environmental harm.
It's not even clear how its behemoth costs will be paid.

The Houston-Galveston Area Council, Metro and others are looking at
regional mobility solutions that take into account diverse needs and
potential solutions. As such efforts go forward, it is worth recalling that all
forms of transportation receive public subsidies. Singling out Metro road
subsidies or rail subsidies or highway subsidies can be a formula for
divisiveness, pitting, for example, city against suburbs. What this region
needs is a collaborative effort to deal regionally with the big picture of
economy-stifling traffic congestion and air pollution.


This article is:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2118273




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 25, 2003


Opponents organize against Metro's light-rail referendum

By LUCAS WALL


The campaign over Metro's Nov. 4 transit-expansion referendum heated
up this morning with the announcement of a well-funded opposition effort.

The group, Texans for True Mobility, is the first opposition group to
emerge with a paid staff and plans to launch advertising countering the
Metropolitan Transit Authority's promotion of light rail. A 73-mile rail
system by 2025, with a $640 million bond issue to accelerate construction
of the next 22 miles, is the centerpiece of the "Metro Solutions" transit
plan voters will decide on in November.

Developer Michael Stevens and John Butler, a member of Metro's original
board of directors, are chairing the campaign. They held a news
conference at the Hyatt Regency Houston, directly across from Metro's
Louisiana Street headquarters, to launch their pitch that the Metro
Solutions plan "costs too much, does too little." Speakers attacked the
light rail portion of the proposal, arguing it will not ease the region's
mobility woes and will carry only a fraction of future travelers.

"Our long term objectives are cost-effective congestion reduction,"
Stevens said. "We are not against all rail but we oppose the Metro
Solutions plan because of the rail component, which will not reduce
congestion."

The group's news conference this morning follows mayoral candidate
Orlando Sanchez's announcement Wednesday that he opposes the Metro
plan. The other two major Houston mayoral candidates, Sylvester Turner
and Bill White, have endorsed the referendum.

Texans for True Mobility's advisory committee is made up of numerous
Republicans including U.S. Rep. John Culberson of Houston, four state
senators, nine state representatives, Harris County Tax Assessor-
Collector Paul Bettencourt, District Clerk Charles Bacarisse, and Harris
County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfil. Butler's wife, Penny, is
Sanchez's campaign treasurer and also serves on the advisory
committee.

There is a partisan difference in how voters view Metro's transit plan, a
recent Houston Chronicle/KHOU-Channel 11 poll found, with Republicans
the most skeptical, but still slightly in favor. The survey found 56 percent
of Democrats questioned support Metro's referendum while 12 percent
oppose it. Republicans, on the other hand, had only 37 percent support
for transit expansion with 33 percent opposed. Among independents, 48
percent said they supported Metro's proposition while 16 percent were
opposed. Roughly one-third of voters in each category were undecided.

Rail opponents point out this poll was conducted before today's launch of
their campaign against the referendum and they expect the numbers will
shift when anti-Metro advertisements start airing and voters better
understand the facts.

"This plan is way too costly," said John Butler. "It doesn't have any effect
on reducing congestion in the region. It's been sold out of context."

Stevens said the group will advocate for other transportation solutions that
will cut congestion in half by 2025, the goal of the "100 percent plan"
being drafted by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. More highways are
needed to serve the vast majority of commuters and freight who move
around by automobile and truck, Stevens said, and other initiatives such
as grade separations and additional commuter bus service should also be
considered in lieu of rail.

"We will support plans that will reduce congestion, that will be cost
effective," he said. "Metro's plan only addresses the downtown area. It's
not for suburb-to-suburb trips -- the places people live to the places
people work."

Texans for True Mobility said Houston must learn from its rival city to the
north, Dallas, which built light rail in 1996 but carries less passengers on
mass transit than Metro does today with its bus system. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit is now running short on money, rail opponents, and has requested
federal assistance.

Voters must reject this referendum, the group said, so Metro can come
back next year with a better plan that will use its sales-tax revenues for
projects that will help relief traffic problems. Stevens said rail can be part
of those plans only if it's proven a line will take a significant number of
cars off the highways and reduce travel time.

Citizens for Public Transportation, the political action committee
campaigning for passage of Metro Solutions, plans an afternoon news
conference to respond to the arguments the opponents made this
morning.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2119946




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 24, 2003


Metro's new ballot language gets green light

Rail expansion plan now qualifies for federal funding

By LUCAS WALL


Metro's new ballot language qualifies its expansion plan for federal
funding, the Federal Transit Administration ruled Wednesday.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, released a letter from the FTA's
chief counsel confirming that the amended ballot language for Metro's
Nov. 4 expansion referendum -- highlighted by 73 miles of rail -- does
meet the requirements of a provision inserted by Rep. John Culberson, R-
Houston. The section, added by Culberson in July to the pending 2004
transportation appropriations bill, requires all future MetroRail segments
be listed on the ballot.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority's board of directors voted Monday --
the deadline under state law for submitting ballot issues -- to add the
proposed rail segments to the computerized ballot screen. The original
ballot did not include the list of rail lines, which drew Culberson's ire and
led to an FTA ruling that the language would not satisfy the bill's
requirements if it becomes law.

William Sears, FTA chief counsel, sent Hutchison a letter Wednesday
stating the revised ballot language "clearly satisfies the requirements."

Hutchison said she will not attempt to remove the Culberson amendment
from the bill, which is pending in the Senate, because the issue has been
resolved.

"If the people of Houston and the surrounding communities vote in
support of light rail, it will be my highest priority to get the full federal share
for the system," Hutchison said in a statement released by her office.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, said the Culberson amendment
remains problematic because it subjects Metro to extra federal rules that
no other transit agency must follow. She sent a letter Monday to Secretary
of Transportation Norman Mineta asking for a reconsideration of the
FTA's original decision because Sears hadn't seen the 22-page
proposition Metro adopted, which includes a list of rail segments.

Metro needs federal matching funds to build the next 22 miles of light rail
lines through 2012. It is asking voters to approve $640 million in bonds to
accelerate construction.

On Wednesday, Metro held the first two of 19 planned meetings to
present the final 2025 "Metro Solutions" plan to voters. The 40 people
who attended Wednesday morning's meeting at Metro headquarters
downtown left with mixed opinions.

"With all the traffic problems we have now, the tie-ups, then light rail is
needed," said Leola Skinner of northeast Houston, who intends to vote for
the plan. "Why would you sit back and wait when you know something is
going to be needed?"

Skinner was skeptical, however, of Metro's contention that it won't need a
tax increase to pay for the transit improvements. But they'll be worth
paying more taxes, she added.

Vic Mendoza of northwest Houston, who rides a commuter bus to work,
was among those voters who left undecided.

"I'm really concerned about the rail and how the rail is going to be cost
effective," Mendoza said. "I have a real good friend who lives in Atlanta
and he told me they've done the rail but it has not improved their
congestion at all. You still are stopped on the freeway."

Mark Whetzel of Katy, who also rides a commuter bus to downtown, said
Metro needs to promote non-rail aspects of the plan such as expanded
bus service and new Park & Ride lots.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2118766




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 25, 2003

Election Central - Metro Rail

Sanchez opposes Metro rail expansion

By JOHN WILLIAMS
Houston Chronicle Political Writer

Former City Councilman Orlando Sanchez on Wednesday became the
only major mayoral candidate to oppose a Nov. 4 transit referendum,
claiming the rail portion of Metro's plan won't reduce traffic congestion.

Sanchez announced his position two days after City Councilman Michael
Berry, who had been the only announced rail opponent among major
candidates for Houston mayor, dropped his mayoral aspirations amid
sagging polls to run for another council seat.

"We need a 100 percent plan, not a 1 percent solution plan," Sanchez
said in a statement issued Wednesday afternoon.

The reference was to a road-oriented plan being developed by the
Houston-Galveston Area Council, which it calls a 100 percent solution and
which Sanchez supports.

Sanchez's two main opponents, businessman Bill White and state Rep.
Sylvester Turner, support the Metro referendum and criticized Sanchez.

White labeled Sanchez's position as short-sighted, saying Houston needs
to expand light rail as soon as possible.

Turner called Sanchez's plan "an unrealistic proposal to pave our way out
of problems."

Sanchez was the last major candidate to stake a position on Metro's
proposal to spend $640 million for 22 miles of light rail by 2012, $774
million for road projects from 2009 to 2014, and increase bus routes by 50
percent by 2025.

Sanchez, who has said his long deliberation came from a need to study
the key issue, said that as mayor he would work toward building enough
roads to cut traffic congestion.

He said he will support rail if voters approve the referendum, but that the
city and region would be better serviced by building and expanding roads,
better synchronizing street lights, deploying a bus rapid transit as well as
deploying clean fuel technology on buses to reduce air pollution.

"Houston was once the envy of the nation in traffic congestion relief,"
Sanchez said in a prepared statement. "I believe we can again be Number
One in traffic relief and on the day one (of taking office) I will begin the
task of leading us there.

"It is an optimistic, can-do vision because that is the kind of people we
are."

Sanchez was critical of Metro's plan, saying that:

· He is inclined to trust Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul
Bettencourt's assertion that Metro has over-estimated its future revenues
by as much as $3 billion.

· Metro does not include a long-term protection of sales tax revenues that
now go to Harris County and cities inside its service area for roads. Metro
has pledged to continue the transfer of this money, called general mobility
funding, through 2014. Voters can change that funding pledge in 2009 if
Metro conducts another referendum for future rail expansion.

· The plan is not well coordinated with other city, county and state entities
involved in transportation planning.

· The rail component of Metro's plan will not reduce traffic congestion by
"any measurable standard."

in recent weeks, rail has emerged as a defining issue in the race to
replace term-limited Mayor Lee Brown.

While voters will consider a broad-ranging transit referendum, rail is the
portion that has generated most passion. Under the proposal, Metro
would add the 22 miles of light rail to a 7.5-mile line nearing completion
between downtown and Reliant Park.

A recent Houston Chronicle/ KHOU-TV poll indicates that 46 percent of
likely voters support the Metro proposal while 21 percent oppose it.

Texas Southern University political scientist Franklin Jones said it appears
Sanchez wants to appeal to anti-rail voters who had supported Berry.

"It allows him to stay as close as he can to the opposition to rail," Jones
said.

Wednesday, White said Sanchez procrastinated on announcing his rail
position and then came forward with a poorly thought-out plan.

White said that the road plan Sanchez is proposing could cost tens of
billions of dollars over the next 25 years. While White said he supports the
Houston-Galveston Area Council's long-range planning for roads and
other modes of transportation, Houston needs to start rail as soon as
possible.

"it's weak and shows no leadership, and will delay a new mass
transportation alternative," White said. "My plan is to build immediately
what we can afford. Orlando's plan is to talk about something we can't
afford and to start nothing."

Turner noted that Metro proposes to build rail with matching federal funds,
which he said will go elsewhere if Houston rejects rail as Sanchez
proposes.

"He has caved into special interests and, in the process, is proposing that
a billion dollars in federal funds be left in Washington, D.C., and bypass
Houston," Turner said.

Sanchez disagreed, saying HGAC's 100 percent solution plan "will
generate more matching funds than Metro's rail plan because it will be
supported by state and federal leaders who are responsible for approving
transportation funding."

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2118711



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 23, 2003, 8:51PM

Election Central - Metro Rail

White predicts rail will play key role in Houston's growth

By JOHN WILLIAMS
Houston Chronicle Political Writer

Houston mayoral candidate Bill White predicted Tuesday that the area will
have a system of light and heavy rail lines in 25 years that will influence
the city's growth patterns.

"Let's get to the heart of it," White said during an interview with the
Houston Chronicle editorial board. "Our city has been growing 10 times
faster than the rest of America.

"That's incredible; that's one of the things that makes us a city of
opportunity, where people like me and others can move here and make a
better life for our families," said White, who moved to Houston after
completing law school at the University of Texas in Austin. "And we are
not going to be able to grow unless we find some way that more people
can get to and from work -- easy.

"That means you have to have a lot of people moving pretty fast in a
narrow space because you just can't triple the size of interstate highways."

White's prediction about expanded rail comes as he faces criticism from
one of his major opponents, state Rep. Sylvester Turner, that White is
lukewarm in his support for rail.

White backs a compromise rail plan that the Metropolitan Transit Agency
will put before voters Nov. 4. It will share the ballot with the mayoral
election and other local races.

The agency originally considered a rail and bus expansion plan that would
have added roughly 39 miles of rail by 2019 to the 7.5-mile light rail line
nearing completion on Main Street.

Amid pressure from anti-rail forces who didn't want the transit agency to
stop spending money on roads, Metro reduced the plan to 22 miles by
2012, with an option to have another referendum for more rail in 2009.

Turner has argued for the 39-mile plan, though he told the editorial board
Monday that he will vote for the 22-mile proposal.

The third major mayoral candidate, former city Councilman Orlando
Sanchez, has not yet taken a position on the referendum.

if the referendum passes, White said, he will work for expanding the
system over time because rail helps direct growth in a city.

By 2025, White said, Houston likely will have a light rail system inside
Loop 610 that occasionally travels below ground so it can move faster.
Spreading out from that backbone will be higher-speed heavy rail lines
along existing rail rights of way running to suburban areas and beyond,
White said.

The rail lines will be part of a flexible transportation system that will
include a lot of cars, buses and flexible working hours, White said.

"What you do when you build rail is you create a corridor for the
development of the future Houston," White said, comparing such
development to what has occurred along highways. "You look at every city
where rail has been in place for a long period of time, and the city has
been built along the rail line."

if the referendum fails, White said, he will work on building a consensus
for another rail system.

in the meantime, he wants to build credibility in Metro through better
management, which he said will help the agency build better relationships
with its critics.

"We need to let everybody know that Metro will be well managed," White
said. "Last year, the operating budget for buses went up more than $20
million ... ridership went down, boardings went down.

"That would be unacceptable in the private sector," he said. "We need to
give people assurances that every penny that Metro takes from taxpayers
is well spent."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2116265



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 22, 2003

Election Central - Metro Rail

Turner says he'll back transit referendum

By JOHN WILLIAMS
Houston Chronicle Political Writer



RESOURCES
· The Houston Chronicle editorial board's interview with Sylvester Turner
was the first in a series of meetings with mayoral candidates seeking the
Chronicle's endorsement in the race to succeed term-limited Mayor Lee
Brown. The meetings are being videotaped and will be aired on the
Municipal Channel starting Sept. 29.

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

After weeks of speculation, mayoral candidate Sylvester Turner on
Monday said unequivocally that he will vote for the transit referendum that
the Metropolitan Transit Agency will put before voters Nov. 4.

When Metro first unveiled the plan last month, Turner complained that the
transit agency was not seeking voter approval for more than 22 miles of
rail.

At the time, he said he hoped Metro would beef up its request by Monday,
which was the deadline for the agency to set ballot language.

But the Metro board stood pat at 22 miles of light rail when it established
the final language at a meeting Monday.

During a meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board Monday,
Turner said he will support the referendum, though he said most
Houstonians want more rail, not less.

"I want more, but I don't want to cut off my head and get nothing," Turner
said of his decision to support the referendum.

Metro board members settled on 22 miles of rail after behind-the-scenes
negotiations with rail opponents who didn't want the transit authority to
eliminate general mobility funding -- sales tax revenue that Metro transfers
to other governments to build roads.

By paring down the plan, the transfer can continue, and Metro can build
rail if voters approve the referendum.

Turner questioned the part of the Metro plan that puts off until 2009 any
vote on extending rail beyond the 22 miles on this year's ballot. That
provision was part of Metro's compromise to extend the general mobility
transfers.

Turner said that decision makes it hard for the next mayor to push for a
broader expansion of rail. He pledged that if he is elected and the
referendum passes, he will ensure that Metro does a good job on the next
phase of rail expansion so voters will want more in a subsequent vote.

"I will make it easier for the next mayor to move forward," Turner said.

Of the three major mayoral candidates, Turner and Bill White now support
the referendum, while Orlando Sanchez has not staked a position. Former
candidate Michael Berry, who withdrew from the race Monday, opposed
the referendum.

Turner, a Democratic state representative who lost a mayoral runoff to
Bob Lanier in 1991, told the editorial board that he has three main issues
he will push as a candidate in 2003. They include managing the city
better; improving infrastructure, such as streets and drainage; and
promoting economic development.

Turner said he will try to attract new business to Houston by promoting
Houston's top attributes, which include a well-educated work force, the
nation's top medical center and a diversified community in which people of
different backgrounds largely get along with one another.

"This city is poised to go far beyond where we are today," Turner said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2113928



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 22, 2003

Election Central - Metro Rail

Metro board changes referendum's wording

By RAD SALLEE


The Metropolitan Transit Authority board voted Monday to change its
ballot wording for the Nov. 4 transit referendum, satisfying U.S. Rep. John
Culberson's insistence that the ballot list the seven proposed rail lines up
for vote.

The Metro board voted unanimously in a brief special meeting, called to
squeeze under the Texas Election Code's ballot-changing deadline of 45
days before an election. The actual deadline fell on Saturday, but it is
customary to extend it to the next business day.

Board Chairman Arthur Schechter said he didn't think listing the proposed
lines on the ballot was "either appropriate or necessary" under state or
federal law and that his motion to amend the ballot language was
intended "to avoid further controversy and clarify the ballot."

Culberson said the change was good news.

"A complete and accurate ballot is critical because the ballot is the
contract between Metro and the voters," he said.

Culberson introduced legislation in July that would bar federal funding for
"any segment of a light rail system in Houston that has not been
specifically approved by a majority of the voters." The provision has been
approved by the House but not yet voted on by the Senate.

Metro is counting on $640 million in matching funds from the Federal
Transit Administration for the next 22 miles of rail it wants to build. FTA
chief counsel William Sears has issued an opinion that Metro's previous
ballot language failed to satisfy Culberson's requirement.

Schechter had asked Sears to reconsider his opinion. That may be moot
with the new ballot language, but Schechter said late Monday that Metro
has not heard back from Sears.

"We are confident that the language passed today satisfies the
requirement," he said.

After Monday's vote, Culberson said he is satisfied with the new ballot but
not with the rail plan itself. He said he will help Metro win federal matching
funds for rail if voters approve the plan, but until Election Day, he is urging
them to reject it.

Culberson also accused Metro of trying, before the change, to mislead
voters into thinking a "yes" vote would authorize only 22 new miles of rail.

"Until today," he said, " we did not know that by voting yes we were giving
legal approval to the full 73-mile system."

Metro officials have frequently stated that the $640 million bond issue on
the referendum ballot would pay for 22 miles of new rail lines, but they
have also said repeatedly that they hope to eventually build out the entire
system. A second bond referendum would be needed to approve further
expansion.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2113873



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 22, 2003

CAR-FREE ON THE OPEN ROAD

Europeans fight air pollution

By ANGELA DOLAND
Associated Press


PARIS -- Many European towns restricted traffic, offered cheap subway
rides or lent bikes in an experiment Monday to cut air pollution -- a
problem that aggravated Europe's deadly heat wave this summer.

More than 1,000 cities, most of them in Europe, took part in the sixth
annual car-free day. In London, accordion players provided entertainment
in streets closed to cars; in Paris, people toured electric-powered buses
and tested environmentally friendly electric cars and Segway scooters.

The annual event started six years ago in France.This time, the problem
seemed even more pressing: Bad air worsened the suffering of thousands
of elderly people who died in August's soaring temperatures.

Organizers say 40 percent of the transport sector's carbon-dioxide
emissions come from private cars in cities.

But people had a hard time leaving their cars in the garage, and many
streets were as clogged as usual. "People are too addicted to their cars,"
said London cabdriver Joe Steele. "They're too used to them."

Most efforts Monday focused on encouraging people to take public
transport. In Helsinki, Finland, a single ticket allowed travel on subways,
buses, trams or commuter trains for the whole day. In Geneva, the usual
$8 day-pass was valid for a week.

in Dublin, ireland, many griped they had seen no advertising about the
day -- particularly plans to hand out free bus tickets for a few off-peak
hours.


This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2113920






PTP Digest 2003/09/23 - CONTENTS

* Tacoma streetcar success proves value of light rail
   Seattle Times Tuesday, September 23, 2003

* Istook shafts Seattle LRT, brings pork to Oklahoma
   Seattle Times  Saturday, September 20, 2003

* Seattle: Hybrid buses 'better than light rail'?
   Seattle Times Tuesday, September 23, 2003

* Seattle: 30-mile Rapid Bus HOV system pushed
   King County Journal (Seattle) 2003-09-07

* Houston lawmaker fights FTA rail ballot ruling
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 21, 2003

* Houston: Metro should woo Culberson despite harassment
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 19, 2003

* Houston: Metro plans ballot change to assuage Culberson
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 20, 2003

* Houston suburbs profiting from Metro revenue diversion?
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 20, 2003, 7:20PM



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

Seattle Times
Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Success in Tacoma proves value of light rail

By John Ladenburg, Kevin Phelps, Claudia Thomas and Dave Enslow
Special to The Times


Light rail is a big hit in Tacoma. From the first hour of the first day of
service, Tacoma Link has been so popular ridership has completely
shattered expectations. As people representing cities and towns in Pierce
County — and as Sound Transit board members — we can tell you with
confidence that light rail is needed now in King County.

Anyone who drives the highways around here knows how lousy the
commutes are. Roads are clogged, commuters sit in traffic and
businesses are turning away. Commuters need options.

Once again, Seattle sits at the front of the line to receive federal dollars
and begin building a regional rail system. A final federal decision draws
near.

Sound Transit is ready to go. New management has turned the agency
around and designed an affordable project. Construction contracts are
prepared, and land for right of way is being bought. We are poised to start
construction in a few weeks.

Sound Transit's turnaround the past two years couldn't have occurred
without the strong scrutiny of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
which set the bar high, asked tough questions and demanded
performance.

Under the leadership of administrator Jenna Dorn, President Bush's chief
transit adviser, FTA insisted on frequent meetings to pore over Sound
Transit and project details. The federal audits of costs, schedule and
scope were tough, but FTA didn't stop there. For this project, the FTA also
required an independent review to make sure the risks and cost estimates
of building light rail were adequately measured.

When Sound Transit cleared the bar, FTA rewarded that by getting solidly
behind the project. The Bush administration's staunch support for the
project is a classic display of nonpartisan good government at work.

Why? Because the professionals at FTA know it is a solid investment
based on the strong transit benefits it will bring the region. They are right,
and they are doing great work on behalf of Puget Sound taxpayers. Their
conclusions have been affirmed by a 50-page independent report —
commissioned by Congress itself — from U.S. Department of
Transportation inspector General Ken Mead.

it's time to stop talking and start building. When the Link system is built,
the Seattle-Tacoma international Airport and residents south of Seattle
will have a reliable rail connection to downtown, as will all of southeast
Seattle. What's more, the foundation will be in place for future expansions
to the north toward Snohomish County, further south to Pierce County,
and across Lake Washington to the Eastside.

if you don't believe it, look at what's happening every day in more than two
dozen cities in North America, where light rail is a cost-effective,
dependable, popular alternative to driving.

One thing is certain when you look at light-rail systems across the country:
if you build it, they will ride.

Cities like Portland, Denver and Salt Lake City have added multiple
segments to their starter systems. By 2020, more than 40,000 people a
day will ride the 14-mile Central Link initial segment running from
downtown Seattle to the airport. When connected to the University
District, that figure will climb to over 125,000.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., chairman of the House transportation
appropriations subcommittee, is a vigilant steward of federal dollars. His
subcommittee is one of four that is considering funding for Sound Transit's
light rail. Istook has the tough job of balancing competing transportation
projects and accounting for every dime. His scrutiny is making a good
project even better.

The oversight has been tough, but the studies are done and we're ready
to go. Now is the time for all our congressional delegation to unite and
help persuade Istook and his colleagues that Puget Sound needs a rail
system.

Thirty three years ago, the Central Puget Sound region missed out on a
chance to build a rail system. When King County voters in 1970 defeated
a bond proposal to build a new regional rail-transit system, millions of
federal dollars instead went to Atlanta.

For the past 33 years, taxpayers in this region have helped pay for
transportation projects elsewhere in the country. Now it's our turn. Let's
not waste another 33 years.

John Ladenburg is Pierce County executive and vice chairman of the
Sound Transit Board of Directors. Kevin Phelps is a Tacoma City Council
member; Claudia Thomas is a Lakewood City Council member; and Dave
Enslow is a Sumner City Council member.



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001737421_satrdr20.html

Seattle Times
Saturday, September 20, 2003

Guest columnist

Sooner rather than Sound

By Richard Borkowski
Special to The Times


When the Seattle City Council merely suggested that the Snake River
dams in Eastern Washington be breached to aid salmon-recovery efforts,
the cries of outrage could be heard around the state. imagine the uproar
we would surely hear from the local media and pundits if our elected
representatives decided they should meddle in the capital projects of a
sparsely populated Southern state.

Yet, nobody seems to balk at the fact that an Oklahoma Republican
congressman is effectively erecting roadblocks to a Seattle transportation
project that his own administration says is one of the two most needed
projects in the country ("Light-rail grant hinges on lawmaker, feds say,"
Times, Local News, Sept. 12).

While Congressman Ernest Istook continues to stall and block a $500
million grant for the Central Link light-rail project, he is funneling $500
million for his own pet transportation projects in Oklahoma. On the same
day he sent a stinging letter to the FTA announcing his formal disapproval
of the federal grant, he issued a press release on his Web site titled "Over
$500-Million for OK Transportation Needs" (see
www.house.gov/Istook/rel-tnt03.htm).

Looks like, while opposing the $500 million grant for Washington state, he
is bringing home the pork to his state to help fund highways, as well as an
over-budget Crosstown Expressway, which is described as the most
expensive project in Oklahoma state's history.

Istook's press release details over $510 million in projects that he
awarded to his state. It also includes an "undesignated $38.5-million
increase." in essence, this is a $38 million blank check, which he suggests
spending for the over-budget Crosstown Expressway.

Istook seems to be playing the role of a congressional Robin Hood more
than that of a fiscal conservative.

Istook says he has questions about Sound Transit finances, while he
ignores those in his home state.

Meanwhile, Bellevue Republican Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn is afraid
of the jobs and mobility Link could provide. She also says she is fearful of
cost overruns, even though the project has been reviewed with a fine-
tooth comb and the engineering designs are nearly 100 percent complete.

I'm sure the citizens of Seattle will feel much safer knowing that our U.S.
representatives are keeping us safe from instruments of mass
transportation.

Richard Borkowski is president of People for Modern Transit, Seattle.



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

Seattle Times
Tuesday, September 23, 2003

New breed of buses better than light rail

By John Niles and Rich Harkness
Special to The Times

Here's good news for Seattle-area transit riders.

King County Metro is testing new hybrid diesel-electric buses that offer
real promise for regional transit. They generate and store their own
electricity, with no overhead wires needed.

A new hybrid bus is 20 to 30 percent more fuel efficient and costs 30 to 50
percent less to operate than the Breda dual-power tunnel buses now in
operation. And don't let that word "diesel" fool you — these hybrids are
quiet and clean machines, 10 times cleaner than current buses.

Better buses open a window of opportunity. Seattle already has one of the
best bus systems in the country. We can boost what we've got to create a
world-class regional mass transit system with superior coverage, speed
and flexibility. No trains are needed.

Almost seven years have passed since we voted for 21 miles of light rail
to be operating by 2006. The route has been shortened to 14 miles, and it
wouldn't open until 2009. Now, just days ago, a congressional committee
reviewing what's left of the original plan caused the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to put a pending federal grant on hold until concerns
about sufficiency of local funding are addressed.

in the years light rail has been on the drawing boards, two important and
opposite trends have occurred: Express bus systems have improved in
cost, capacity and speed, while Sound Transit's light rail has ballooned in
cost by $2 billion and plummeted in expected ridership.

Since light rail would only reduce peak-period road traffic by one-tenth of
1 percent, it would have no noticeable effect on traffic congestion, air
quality or energy use. It's like tearing one page out of the Seattle phone
book and trying to see a difference. Light rail would cost taxpayers
$100,000 per year for each car removed from peak period traffic.

Using hybrid buses to expand and improve transit service would work
better.

Light-rail fans say, "Buses will be stuck in traffic." But Puget Sound
already has an extensive freeway HOV network that with better
management could provide 200 miles of mostly free-flowing guideways for
express buses.

Because of 18 signalized street crossings and miles of unfenced track
along Martin Luther King Jr. Way South in Seattle, light-rail trains — which
Sound Transit plans to run down the street at 35 mph — would be more
hampered by traffic and accidents than managed HOV lanes carrying
buses will ever be. In addition, mixing trains with buses in the downtown
bus tunnel will degrade travel time on regional bus routes.

Few people understand that FTA regulations require that the high cost of
light rail be justified by a formal comparison with an alternative express
bus plan. In response to this requirement, Sound Transit used a high-cost,
poorly performing straw man that makes light rail pencil out as more cost-
effective than express bus service.

For example, the bus alternative that Sound Transit presented to the FTA
is over $200 million more expensive than it should be, because Sound
Transit assumed in 2001 that tunnel buses would cost $1.6 million each.
By now, the price of hybrid buses has come down to about $600,000.
Additionally, Sound Transit has specified inefficient routes that make the
bus alternative provide slower service than it should.

Sound Transit's board could direct staff to upgrade the straw man
alternative using the latest Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and hybrid-bus
technologies, then step back and give it honest consideration as an
alternative to light rail.

Research indicates BRT would offer more geographic coverage, more
capacity, more ridership, and more safety than light rail — all at equivalent
or better speeds and service frequencies, and for much less money. An
honest apples-to-apples comparison has never been done. See the May
15 "CETA Report to Congress" for added detail, at
www.effectivetransportation.org.

Are we "senseless in Seattle" when it comes to spending tax dollars on
transit? At a time when so many are struggling in a poor economy, and
the public is demanding more accountability, public officials should jump
on every opportunity to obtain more bang for the buck by exploiting new
technologies that have come along since the light-rail vote. BRT using
hybrid buses offers this opportunity.

An updated, well-designed bus system would provide speedy service to
hundreds of destinations throughout the region, whereas light rail would
only serve a dozen stops between downtown and Tukwila. Which would
better serve your needs?

Would you like to have clean, quiet, frequent, high-capacity bus rapid
transit on 200 route miles in 2006? Or would you rather let Sound Transit
take our bus system backwards, spend unnecessary billions, and end up
with just 14 miles of light rail in 2009? That's the choice our leaders are
making.

John Niles is technical coordinator of the Coalition for Effective
Transportation Alternatives (CETA) in Seattle, and research associate at
the Mineta Transportation institute. Rich Harkness, a retired Boeing
manager in Bellevue, holds a Ph.D. In urban-transportation planning and
is a life member of the Sierra Club.



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

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/142538

King County Journal (Seattle)
2003-09-07

Rapid bus service: a possible solution - A 30-mile system along interstate
405 could carry 4,500 riders by 2014

by Jeff Switzer
Journal Reporter

Buses would run every 10 minutes, all day long, up and down interstate
405 from Lynnwood to the Sea-Tac Airport under a proposed new bus
rapid transit system.

it would take 10 bus stations and 19 new-fangled bus coaches to launch
the system, officials from the state and three transit agencies say.

Together, they would create a trunk line of service on the 30-mile freeway
-- the I-405 BRT Line-- that would provide all-day, high-frequency service.

The line would run from Lynnwood down through Bothell, Kirkland,
Bellevue and Renton, then end at Seattle-Tacoma international Airport.

Bus Rapid Transit means fast, frequent buses coupled with the expensive
stations and freeway overpasses to make them run and draw passengers.

There isn't any money to launch the program -- yet. But it's the most
developed plan yet for a rubber-tire version of Seattle's light rail. The 10-
year price tag for the concrete and buses: $436 million. The cost to run
the system for a year is $8 million, less whatever can be made at the fare
box.

Officials received a report on BRT at a meeting of the I-405 Executive
Committee last week. The committee approved a bus rapid transit system
in 2001, but in concept only. The report was the first time officials learned
how one might work.

''it's not the alpha and the omega of solving congestion but makes a
significant contribution,'' said George Kargianis, I-405 committee chairman
and state transportation commissioner.

Conservative ridership figures estimate more than 4,500 daily riders in
2014, compared with 3,500 riders with current transit service.

''Looking at the projected growth in employment along 405, I'm surprised
the numbers are not higher than this, especially the peak ridership,'' said
County Councilman Rob McKenna.

''A lot of people will be challenging those numbers,'' said Renton
Councilman Randy Corman.

The plan includes about 100,000 hours of bus transit a year: 60,000 hours
for buses on the freeway and 40,000 hours for local buses feeding the
transit centers.

To make it work, the state and transit agencies say Park & Ride lots on
the freeway need 2,350 more spaces.

if fares cover 25 percent of operating the bus rapid transit system -- a
typical transit return -- that leaves $6 million to fund, McKenna said.

''$6 million is nothing to sneeze about, and it's nothing to panic about,'' he
said.

An estimated 1 million people already use I-405 in the Renton area in
cars, buses and van pools. In the HOV lanes, about 80 percent are in car
pools and van pools, with about 20 percent in buses.

Expanding the bus system on I-405 is important, said Sen. Jim Horn, a
Mercer island Republican and chairman of the Senate Highways and
Transportation Committee.

But additional freeway lanes is more important, he said.

About $3.2 billion might be available for I-405 projects-- BRT included-- if
county officials succeed in drafting a transportation ballot measure for
King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

Other BRT funds might come from the federal government, the state or
local transit agencies, such as Sound Transit.

Bus rapid transit is up and running in Brisbane, Australia; Bogota,
Columbia; and Vancouver, B.C. Las Vegas has a new line, so does
Phoenix. Boston's first BRT service is under construction.

Besides very frequent service, the buses feature low floors and more
doors for quicker boardings. Running on alternative fuels, the buses are
quieter and produce less pollution.

''We don't want to be too flashy, but want to make sure there are some
distinctive features,'' said consultant Tom Naguchi.

They are supposed to run 50-55 mph in their own lane, and will be using
the HOV lanes on I-405.

Rather than merge across three or more lanes of traffic, the buses will use
future direct access ramps that rise up to overpasses from the HOV lanes.

State highway engineers have a $500,000 federal grant to design a typical
bus rapid transit station, and have chosen 112th Avenue Southeast in
Bellevue for the conceptual work.

Jeff Switzer can be reached at jeff.switzer@kingcountyjournal.com or 425-
453-4234.




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 21, 2003

Election Central - Metro Rail

Jackson Lee urges officials to reject rail ballot ruling

By MIKE GLENN

A member of Houston's congressional delegation wants federal
transportation officials to reject an internal last-minute legal ruling that has
prompted the latest assault on Metro's light rail plan.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta should reconsider the
opinion from the Federal Transit Administration's chief counsel, ruling that
Metro's ballot language would result in an elimination of federal funding if
a bill making its way through Congress is signed into law, Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee, D-Houston, said Sunday.

"We've gone too far to be able to turn back now," she said, calling any
construction delay resulting from the opinion "intolerable."

Standing amid the dangling cables at a still-unfinished light rail stop near
Main and Richmond, Jackson Lee called the matter "a local issue that
should be left to local voters."

"We want to be assured that the federal government will not interfere with
any election that we will have and will not interfere with any funding,"
Jackson Lee said.

The latest dispute erupted Thursday after Rep. John Culberson, R-
Houston, released a letter from FTA chief counsel William Sears that
ruled the 22 miles of rail segments must be individually listed on the Nov.
4 ballot.

While the sections are cataloged on the board resolution -- considered
part of the referendum -- voters won't find them on the computerized ballot
screens because of their length. Instead, they are asked to approve
"construction of extensions of Metro's rail system" and other transit
agency projects.

Jackson Lee said Metro board members will meet today, "to redefine the
language in order to be assured that every person who votes is aware of
their commitment to a rail system, if their vote happens to be yes."

Any alteration to the ballot language, however, could run afoul of Texas
law, which mandates that any election, including a description of the
measure, be filed within 45 days of Election Day. That deadline fell
Saturday.

"We are very much up against that time frame," Jackson Lee
acknowledged. "We are less than 45 days away from the election. This is
a crisis as it relates to state law and as it relates to federal law."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2112683



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 19, 2003

Editorial

TRANSIT MANEUVERS

Metro should have dodged harassment over ballot

New light-rail projects are controversial everywhere they are built, until the
public comes to appreciate their flexibility. At that point the controversy
fades into the shadows of the projects' popularity and success.

But nowhere else has rail transit had to overcome as many frivolous
lawsuits, deliberate misinformation and malicious political attacks by
selfish politicians and real estate speculators who put personal profit and
ambition above the common good.

At a recent Houston mayoral debate, Orlando Sanchez falsely stated that
the transit resolutions passed last month by the Metropolitan Transit
Authority remained unsigned by the board's chairman. Michael Berry
made the ridiculous allegation that rail transit would hurt Metro bus divers,
who operate an expanded bus system as well as the trains.

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, who has nothing
to do with transit, hounds Metro that its 25-year financial projections are
off by a tiny percentage of the total. When cumulative budgets are
measured in billions and the passage of time in decades, exact
predictions are impossible, and Bettencourt's figures have no more claim
to accuracy than Metro's. If Metro's revenues are slightly less than they
planned, appropriate cost cuts can be made.

The most vexing thorn in Metro's side used to be Rep. Tom DeLay, who
passed a bill that for years forbade federal funds for Houston rail transit.
Over the years DeLay cost Houston a billion or more in mobility funds that
went to Dallas and other cities.

Now DeLay has handed the chore of harassing Metro to his mini-me, Rep.
John Culberson. Culberson threatens to sabotage Metro's mobility
referendum in November if Metro doesn't word the ballot item exactly as
he wants.

Metro board members understandably are reluctant to prostrate
themselves before a politician who has no intention of letting Metro
expand rail transit. No matter what Metro does, Culberson will do
everything he can to thwart its aims, including the devious manipulation of
federal transit officials.

However, this is one instance in which Metro could have avoided a
problem by letting Culberson, within reason, dictate the ballot language. A
poll conducted for the Chronicle shows overwhelming rail support in urban
neighborhoods and in suburbs such as those Culberson represents.

Metro's lawyers offer the opinion that Metro meets all legal requirements --
including one Culberson might succeed in imposing -- by listing every
light-rail segment in the resolution to be voted on in November. Culberson
insists that an amendment he passed in the U.S. House, which does not
mention the word ballot, requires Metro to list the rail segments on the
ballot.

Metro board members wisely have decided to meet on Wednesday and
try to satisfy Culberson's demands, although conflicting state laws cause
some uncertainty as to the outcome.

Whatever the Metro board decides, U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and
John Cornyn should use their good offices to remove Culberson's
punishing amendment from the final transportation bill. At least some
Texans in Washington should show concern for the welfare of the state's
largest city and most populous region.


This article is:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2110245



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 20, 2003

Metro board to meet on rail ballot language

By LUCAS WALL


Metro's board moved up the date of its special meeting to consider
changing the ballot language of its Nov. 4 transit-expansion referendum to
placate a congressional critic and avoid a potential conflict with Texas
election laws.

"We want to get it resolved as quickly as possible," said Metro spokesman
Ken Connaughton, explaining why the date was changed from
Wednesday to Monday.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, sent the Metropolitan Transit Authority
a letter Monday asking it to amend its ballot language. Culberson attached
a letter he received Sept. 12 from the Federal Transit Administration's
chief counsel, ruling that Metro's ballot language would disqualify it from
federal funding if a bill pending in Congress is enacted.

Metro responded with a letter to the FTA the same day, asking Chief
Counsel William Sears to reconsider his opinion that the transit authority's
failure to list proposed rail segments on the ballot would violate the
amendment Culberson added to the fiscal year 2004 transportation
appropriations bill.

The transit authority enclosed the board's 22-page resolution with its letter
to Sears. The resolution, which Metro plans to publish for voters before
Election Day, spells out in detail the elements of the 2025 plan that Metro
wants voters to endorse, including each rail segment.

Culberson's provision "does not specifically contain the word 'ballot,' "
Metro wrote. "Therefore, we believe that the requirements of (the
provision) can be met in alternative ways."

Culberson strongly disagrees with that statement and said Friday he does
not believe Sears will change his opinion. Metro said it had expected to
hear back from Sears by now, but the decision was delayed because bad
weather from Hurricane isabel shut down most federal offices in
Washington for several days.

Metro is running up against a Texas Election Code deadline that requires
calling a referendum at least 45 days before Election Day. For the Nov. 4
election, that deadline is today. Culberson, however, said because the
deadline falls on a weekend, it's common practice to extend it until the
next business day. That's Monday.

The transit authority believes it may modify its ballot language beyond the
45-day deadline, but to avoid any legal trouble, the board will meet at 10
a.m. Monday to vote on adding the rail segments to the ballot. The board
did not add the segments to the ballot Aug. 18 when it approved the
language the first time because its attorneys said it wasn't necessary to
list them on the computerized ballot screen, as long as they are in the
paper document detailing the plan.

Culberson said he wants to ensure that voters are not confused by the
referendum. Metro is asking for authorization for a 73-mile rail system, the
first 22 miles of which would be funded by a $640 million bond issue. The
transit authority would have to return to voters in future years to obtain
additional bond authorization to construct the remaining 51 miles.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2110484



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 20, 2003, 7:20PM

Rail plan paved on road-fund inequities

Smaller Metro cities defend larger share

By LUCAS WALL



ROADS VS. RAIL

Road money extension included in Nov. 4 Metro referendum: $774 million

·if that money were spent on rail and matched with federal funds: $1.5
billion

·Cost of 33 rail miles Metro chopped from financing package: $1.4 billion


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

The 14 small cities that receive road subsidies from Metro maintain
property tax rates that are on average 43 percent lower than those in 14
other local cities that do not belong to the transit authority.

A Houston Chronicle analysis of the cities' financial data also shows that
over the past four years, the Metropolitan Transit Authority has given
Houston an average of $17.65 per resident each year for roads, while
disbursing an average of $107.14 per resident to the 14 small-city
members.

"The system is just awful in the sense that all of them want to bleed
Houston," said David Crossley, director of the Gulf Coast institute, which
promotes "smart growth" and urban development. He said Houston is
being forced to "support the lifestyles of the suburbanites."

"This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the general idea of how
suburbs are subsidized by the inner-city residents," he added.

Officials in the smaller Metro cities counter that their residents are much
less reliant on bus service, so the road dollars meet their transportation
needs; that Houston benefits hugely from investment in special mass-
transit projects; and that the road subsidy keeps them from trying to
withdraw from the Metro service area. If a city withdrew from the transit
authority, it would cost Metro the 1-cent sales tax it collects there.

Although Houston also receives a road subsidy from Metro, urban
advocates and some city officials say it is disproportionately small. The
city generates 91 percent of the Metro service area's sales-tax revenue
and has 71 percent of the population, but it has received only 55 percent
of Metro road money since the most recent "general mobility" contracts
were signed in 1999.

That discrepancy may help explain why property tax rates are an average
of 45 percent lower in the transit authority's 14 smaller member cities than
in Houston, though leaders of small cities point out that other factors
come into play, such as the higher value of homes in their enclaves.

The extra mobility money going to the small cities allows them to have an
average property-tax rate of 35.7 cents per $100 assessed value,
compared with Houston's rate of 65.5 cents. Humble residents pay 20
cents per $100 in taxes, and Hedwig Village residents are taxed at a rate
of 21.4 cents.

Houston City Councilman Carroll Robinson said the subsidy allows the
smaller Metro members to keep their tax rates down without having to cut
services.

"The Metro sales tax general mobility transfer is subsidizing the property-
tax rates in those cities," said Robinson, chairman of the council's
transportation committee. "If you took away the excess money they were
getting, if they got a fair rate of return, they would have to make some
tough decisions about either raising their property taxes or bringing down
their expenditures."

Metro's Nov. 4 expansion referendum includes a five-year extension of the
general mobility fund that pays for local streets with 25 percent of Metro's
sales-tax revenue. To do that, the Metro board had to slice 33 miles of rail
lines out of the financing package for the 2025 transit plan.

Voters in 1988 endorsed the road-money giveaway for a decade. In 1999,
the fund was extended by the Metro board for another 10 years.

When the transit authority unveiled its draft "Metro Solutions" plan in April,
it proposed ending the road-money distributions when current agreements
expire in 2009. Authority executives argued that Metro should solely be a
mass-transit agency, not a piggy bank for asphalt and concrete.

But ending the mobility money emerged as the most controversial part of
the 2025 transit plan. Metro's board of directors first amended the plan to
put half the road funding back in, then voted to include a full five-year
extension at 25 percent.

Voters won't be able to pick and choose which parts of Metro's plan they
favor. They must cast a ballot for or against the entire proposal, which
includes the $774 million road-money extension from 2009 to 2014, a
$640 million bond issue for 22 miles of light rail to be constructed by 2012
and a 50 percent increase in bus routes by 2025.

That leaves some Houstonians with a difficult choice: Vote for the plan

and receive a little more rail in the city but continue to subsidize road
building -- and thus tax rates -- in the smaller towns or vote against the
plan, hoping Metro comes back next year with a larger rail proposal with
no road-money extension. But that could risk killing rail for good.


Leaders of the small cities contend they get a fair share of Metro's money,
considering there is little bus service outside of Houston. They also point
out that the Bayou City has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in
Metro special projects lately, including the 7 1/2-mile Main Street light rail
line and the Downtown/Midtown Transit Streets Project, which is
rebuilding 14 city-center streets heavily used by buses. Metro also funds a
transit police force that mostly patrols Houston streets and freeways, the
small cities note.

"You're talking about a huge amount of money, federal grants and stuff,
they spend building road projects within the city of Houston," said Mayor
Dee Srinivasan of Hedwig Village, who led the charge among the small-
city leaders to preserve the general mobility fund.

"Nobody on the west side is getting rail," said Srinivasan, who gets
$278.06 for each of her residents from Metro annually, the most per
capita of any city. "That tax for Metro has to be spent on transportation.
Without roads, you have no transportation."

Humble now gets $226.22 per resident each year in Metro street funding,
enough to cover its entire $4.5 million annual street budget. That means it
can shift city money it would have spent on roads to non-transportation
projects, such as a convention center.

Cities such as Humble receive a much higher proportion of the Metro
money than their population because of the complex way the dollars are
distributed:

· Projects approved by Metro before the 1999 extension receive first
priority regardless of where they are located.

· Next in line are special "congestion mitigation" agreements with the 14
small cities. Eleven of the cities get a fixed amount per year while three
get half the annual Metro sales tax they generate.

· The remaining dollars, minus 6 1/2 percent of the overall total that is
reserved for areawide projects, are distributed to the cities and Harris
County via a population-based formula. Houston gets 73.7 percent of that
disbursement, slightly higher than its 70.6 percent population share.

Another argument the small cities make is that it's fair they receive a
higher percentage of the road money now since Houston took so much
from Metro in the 1990s, when Mayor Bob Lanier killed a 1988 rail plan.
Lanier funneled hundreds of millions of Metro dollars into the city treasury
to hire more police officers and pay for other services.

"We work hard to keep that tax rate down," acknowledged Bill Marshall,
mayor of Bunker Hill. He said the small cities need help from Houstonians,
who often drive through their communities.

"Memorial Drive runs through Bunker Hill," Marshall said. "If we had to do
any major work on Memorial Drive, repaving or putting up lights, that could
easily double or triple our annual budget. We're all beneficiaries of the
regional transportation dollar no matter where we live."

Mayor C. Barrett Monday II of neighboring Piney Point said the road
transfer is the only way his residents get back their share of the transit tax.

"We have one bus and probably one or two covered stops where you can
sit," Monday said. "That's the extent of what we get from Metro."

Monday said that in an ideal world "we could get folks off our roads and
onto rapid transit. But I don't blame some of them. I don't like to stand in
the rain waiting for a bus. And the buses don't go near our houses. ... We
just want the money to help keep those streets in repair."

The small cities acknowledge that not all their road money goes toward
adding new lane capacity, the original intent of Metro's general mobility
fund. A recent Metro study found 78 percent of its road funds have been
used for routine maintenance costs that typically should be covered by
city taxpayers.

"it's good for everybody involved," said Hunters Creek Mayor Stephen
Reichek. "We don't want to be driving on potholes and bad streets that
ruin your cars."

James Cumming of Taylor Lake Village, one of two Metro board members
who represent the small cities, said it is difficult to compare property-tax
rates across jurisdictions. Taylor Lake Village's tax rate of 38.5 cents per
$100 is 41 percent less than Houston's. But, Cumming said, it doesn't
include a separate tax levied in Taylor Lake by the Clear Lake City Water
Authority because the village does not pump its own water. Other small
cities don't offer all the services Houstonians receive, he said.

"You're talking apples and oranges here in some of these cities," said
Cumming, who voted against the 2025 transit blueprint because it didn't
include road money but switched his vote to support the plan sent to the
ballot.

Houston generates so much of Metro's sales-tax revenue because it
managed to annex most of the businesses in the area, Cumming noted.
That means many small-city residents must travel to Houston to purchase
goods, helping inflate the city's coffers.

Katy City Administrator Johnny Nelson said his community isn't eager to
raise taxes to pay for all of its own roadwork so that Metro can keep more
money for inner Loop rail.

"Nobody likes to raise taxes," he said.

But Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen said he would be willing to relinquish
his city's road money for a solid proposal to bring rail to Fort Bend County.
An 8-mile commuter rail line planned for Missouri City was among the 33
miles of rail hacked from the financing package to pay for more roads.


Some Houston leaders dismiss the small cities' assertion that Metro
already gives too much money to the big city. Metro's investments in
transit projects in the city are appropriate for a transit authority, they say,
and the same arguments about residents from other places using the
roads apply as well. Many small-city residents commute into Houston for
work and cause wear and tear on those streets, Robinson said.

At least some of those disappointed that the Metro board agreed to
continue the road payments as part of the referendum will nevertheless
vote "yes" because they view 22 more miles of rail as better than none.

"I don't think it's the best deal for Houston, but I am going to support it,"
Robinson said. "I wish they would have had the gumption to go for the
bigger rail package, and I wish all the people who are out there saying
they are disappointed would have raised their voices and let it be known in
a grander way. But in this business, sometimes you have to crawl before
you can walk."

Robinson is among those questioning Houston Mayor Lee Brown's
directive to his Metro board members to vote for the smaller rail package
as a way to gain the endorsement of Lanier and the Greater Houston
Partnership. He called the package "a skewed deal."

Al Haines, the city's chief administrative officer, said Brown supported the
road money extension to delay a political fight that could have led to the
defeat of rail this year. Metro can build only so much light rail in the next
five to 10 years anyway, Haines said, and it was important to reach an
agreement with the small cities over the transit authority's future.

Haines said road money cannot be measured simply on a per-capita basis
because many factors, including those deals struck to keep some of the
small cities from trying to withdraw from Metro, come into play. He denied
that Houstonians are getting shortchanged and pointed out that the city
will get a higher share of the road funds after the Main Street light rail line
is complete.

"Should Houston get more mobility money? Absolutely," Haines said. "is it
unfair? I don't know. It's part of the agreements."

The board's referendum resolution includes a clause requiring a public
vote by 2013 on whether to end the road subsidy after the new planned
2014 expiration date. Metro's financial package for the 2025 plan budgets
zero dollars for road work after 2014.

Metro President and CEO Shirley DeLibero said it is critical to move
ahead with extending the Main Street light rail line immediately, even if rail
advocates are not satisfied with the entire transit package.

"For the people who want rail and see this as a step back, I think they
need to be supportive," she said. "Once they see the 7 1/2 miles up and
running and see the expansion of the 22 miles that we're building and
really get a chance to evaluate, they'll see that transit does make a
difference, that people are going to ride it. Then people will have an
opportunity at the next go-around to vote down any road money."


Chronicle reporters Cindy Horswell and Terry Kliewer contributed to this
story.


Monday: Fares


This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2110399










PTP Digest 2003/09/21-A - CONTENTS

* Portland: 1st West Coast 'train-to-plane' service (LRT) turns 2
   Tri-Met 09 Sep 2003

* San Diego: Mission Valley trolley (LRT) extension OK'd
   San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune: Wednesday, September 10, 2003

* D-FW: TRE (regional rail) trims schedule to cut costs
   Dallas Morning News Saturday, September 20, 2003

* SF-Bay Area: Low ridership may force BART airport line cutbacks
   CONTRA COSTA TIMES Tue, Sep. 16, 2003

* Seattle: Istook's LRT 'micromanagement' may reflect 'personal pique'
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, September 12, 2003

* Seattle: More on Istook's effort to bollix LRT
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Thursday, September 11, 2003

* Seattle: Summary of LRT funding saga
   Seattle Times Thursday, September 11, 2003

* Seattle monorail: Consultant hired to bolster 'flagging confidence'
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, September 19, 2003

* Seattle monorail: Financial data difficulties disputed
   Seattle Times Friday, September 19, 2003

* Seattle monorail:  City council disputes Seattle Center route
   The Queen Anne News/The Magnolia News  09/17/2003

* Seattle monorail:  Council approves 65-ft high stations, design rules
   The Seattle Medium 9/17/2003

* Seattle monorail:  Letters reflect community concerns over impacts
   Seattle Post-Intelligencer Friday, September 19, 2003



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

Tri-Met
09 Sep 2003

 News & info > News Room

Airport MAX turns 2 with 8.5 million rides

Since service began two years ago, 8.5 million rides have been taken on
the Airport MAX Red Line between Portland international Airport (PDX)
and downtown Portland. That equals 5.5 rides for every person living in
the Portland metro area.

When the 5.5-mile extension between Gateway Transit Center and PDX
opened Sept. 10, 2001, it was the first train-to-plane service on the West
Coast. The extension added four stations and provided direct service
between downtown Portland and the airport.

TriMet just extended Airport MAX Red Line service eight more miles to
Beaverton Transit Center, adding six more stations and bringing direct
airport service to more riders. The extension also adds capacity where
ridership is heaviest on the Westside.

The Airport MAX Red Line serves double duty, with 75 percent of riders
using it for trips along the light rail system's heaviest ridership area
between Gateway Transit Center and Beaverton Transit Center. About
2,400 people get on or off at Portland international Airport Station each
weekday.

26 million rides on the MAX system

TriMet's three light rail lines, including Eastside and Westside Blue Lines
and the Airport MAX Red Line board nearly 80,000 each weekday.
Annually, they provide over 26 million rides.

970 trips around the world

Since 1986, trains on all 38 miles of track have logged more than 24
million miles, equivalent to 970 trips around the Earth at the equator.



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

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030910-1510-
railfunding.html

San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune:
Wednesday, September 10, 2003

 Congress OKs funds for Mission Valley trolley extension


SAN DIEGO – The U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that
provides $65 million for a rail extension that will connect two area trolley
lines, it was announced today.

The funding will go to the Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit extension.

The project involves extending the San Diego Trolley system 5.9 miles
eastward along interstate 8 from the Blue Line station in Mission San
Diego to a connection with the Orange Line at the Grossmont Center
station in La Mesa.

The money comes from the Transportation, Treasury and independent
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The measure, which
provides funding for the Department of Transportation and various
infrastructure initiatives, passed the House this week on a 381-39 vote.

"The funding is significant for our area," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El
Cajon. "Every day, people are realizing that San Diego is a great place to
live and work. As a result, it is more important than ever that we continue
tackling the problems of congestion and the lack of public transportation.

"These funds will be used to continue our efforts of making the San Diego
Trolley a convenient and efficient form of mass transit for San Diego," he
said.

The extension will bring transit stations to 70th Street, Alvarado Medical
Center, San Diego State University and the Grantville area. When
complete, the trolley is expected to serve about 10,000 riders daily.



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

http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/columnists/thartzel/stories/092103d
nmetroadrunner.718af.html

Dallas Morning News
Saturday, September 20, 2003

Commuter rail trimming schedule

By TONY HARTZEL / The Dallas Morning News


Trains won't roll quite as often on the Trinity Railway Express beginning
Oct. 6.

The commuter rail line will eliminate two afternoon round trips between
CentrePort/DFW Airport Station and Union Station in Dallas. In addition,
several late-evening trains will be eliminated because of budget cuts
prompted by sales tax revenue shortfalls.

Originally, planners also had considered eliminating the first train of the
day from Fort Worth to Dallas, which ran at 5:35 a.m. weekdays. After
vocal opposition and a petition drive from the early-morning passengers,
DART looked for other places to cut service.

"We wanted to serve our customers the best way we can. We learned
more about their concerns and thought this was a better way to
accommodate the passengers," said Doug Allen, executive vice president
of Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

Gone instead are the 2:05 p.m. and 4:48 p.m. trains from Union Station to
CentrePort. Schedule-makers also eliminated the last train to Fort Worth
from Dallas, which ran at 10:15 p.m. The last one to Fort Worth now will
leave at 7:21 p.m.

Several other evening trains that didn't go all the way to Fort Worth also
were cut. The last train to CentrePort will leave at 8:45 p.m. Before the
cuts, the last train ran at 11:36 p.m.

Similar cuts will occur on train service from Fort Worth to CentrePort or
Dallas. The first Saturday train also has been eliminated.

All schedule changes take effect Oct. 6.

"All that effort was worth it," said rail commuter Peg Kowalsky, who works
in downtown Dallas and vowed not to give up her fight until the first
morning train was assured of continuing. "This is going to make a lot of
people happy."

The visually impaired commuter said she would have had difficulty getting
to her job on time.

Sales tax shortfalls have led DART to cut service throughout the agency,
and the commuter rail line between Dallas and Fort Worth is no exception.
DART and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority jointly operate the
commuter rail line.

The commuter rail cuts will save about $800,000 a year. Eliminating the
midday trains will save about $200,000 alone.

Removing some trains will mean that commuter rail passengers may have
to wait a little longer than they should, Mr. Allen said.

"Hopefully by January, we'll be looking at ways of fine-tuning the
schedules to smooth things out a bit," he added.

DART officials say the cuts in regular service will not seriously affect the
TRE's service to Dallas Stars and Mavericks games at American Airlines
Center. Like last year, regularly scheduled trains will stop at the arena
before events. Because regular evening service has been cut back, a
special train will run 20 minutes after an event ends.

"This will be as good for the customers, but it's more cost-effective," Mr.
Allen said.

• Because of bus route cuts, DART will launch on-call bus service in three
new areas starting Oct. 6 – East Plano, Farmers Branch and North Dallas.
The transit agency will hold meetings in each of the three affected areas
next week. The new service will replace portions of bus routes 321, 322,
503, 57, 570, 575 and 761.

Bus riders are encouraged to attend one of three meetings: 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday at Plano City Hall, 1520 Avenue K; at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at
Farmers Branch City Hall, 13000 William Dodson Parkway; and at 6 p.m.
Thursday at Hillcrest High School, 9924 Hillcrest Road, Dallas.


Tony Hartzel can be reached at thartzel@dallasnews.com and at P.O.
Box 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265.



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

CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Tue, Sep. 16, 2003

Low turnout jeopardizes BART extension

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen

Low ridership may force BART to cut back service on the two-month-old
extension to San Francisco international Airport and the Peninsula.

Samtrans, the San Mateo County agency responsible for paying the new
line's operating costs, has said it will run out of money before the first of
the year unless more people ride.

The line logged 25,000 trips a day in July and August, a figure far lower
than the 42,000 estimate on which planners based the operating budget.

"Less service is a possibility although we don't want to do anything to
discourage ridership," said San Mateo County Supervisor and Samtrans
board member Mike Nevin. "BART and Samtrans are going to have to
work together on this situation. We can't break Samtrans. That won't
help."

The threat of red ink will further test BART and Samtrans' relationship, a
complex partnership that has evolved over often difficult negotiation and
construction issues.

Under its contract with BART, Samtrans accepted liability for extension
operating costs. In return, it receives fare proceeds and a share of parking
and other fees.

if the line makes money, the agencies split the proceeds. If it loses
money, Samtrans must cover the deficit.
BART officials insisted on the provision to protect the operating money for
the rest of the system, funded partially by taxpayers in Contra Costa,
Alameda and San Francisco counties.

San Mateo County residents do not pay BART property tax and do not
hold seats on its elected board.
Despite the provision, Samtrans has advised BART that it cannot afford to
exceed the $6 million it budgeted to operate the line through June 2004
and has asked to renegotiate the contract.

Unless ridership dramatically improves this fall, Samtrans will spend every
dime of its budget by early next year, Nevin said.

BART officials vowed to hold Samtrans to the terms of the deal even if it
means going to court.
Philosophical differences aside, BART has suffered deep budget cuts in
the recent economic downturn and lacks sufficient cash reserves to
absorb a prolonged financial drain.

"The financial consequences of this could be enormous to the people in
the East Bay if Samtrans walks away from its agreement," said BART
Director Dan Richard of Walnut Creek. "But before we start swallowing
Samtrans poor-mouth talk, we need to ask them why they continue to run
bus service that competes with the new line."

At the same time, BART holds a huge stake in the new line and "will do
everything it can to help Samtrans resolve the issue," said BART General
Manager Tom Margro.

Cost-cutting measures could include service cuts, although Margro and
Nevin expressed reluctance to make changes that might hurt ridership.

Staffers will also evaluate ways to improve service without hiking costs,
such as tweaking the schedule to allow for better timing and the
elimination of transfers from East Bay routes.

The airport station has proven the most attractive destination, followed by
the San Bruno and South San Francisco stations.

The Millbrae station, with its highly touted cross-platform connection with
CalTrain, has attracted far fewer customers than planners anticipated.

"We're not sure what's happening at Millbrae," Margro said. "The terminus
(end of the line) stations usually have robust ridership. ... I've also
suggested that we look at the impacts of both the $1 surcharge and the
parking fees. It may be that a combination of those fees has put some
people off."

Despite the gloomy talk, Margro and Nevin both say it's too early to panic.
The line opened June 22, the start of summer and the traditional slow
period for transit.
"We couldn't have opened at a worse time," Nevin said. "Schools and
colleges were out. The freeways were flowing. The economy continued to
suffer. People didn't have jobs."

Both men say they will look to September results, where they hope the
end of the vacation season and worsening traffic on Highway 101 will
deliver more fare-paying passengers.

Lisa Vorderbrueggen covers transportation and growth. Reach her at 925-
945-4773 or lvorderb@cctimes.com.



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/139197_stransited.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, September 12, 2003

Staying on the right track ...

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., continued his curious micromanagement of
our region's transit plans with Wednesday's proclamation of his "formal
disapproval" of Sound Transit's light rail funding.

Congress certainly has the authority to appropriate funds, but the tone of
Istook's letter suggests this may be more about his personal pique than
any pecuniary responsibility.

For whatever reasons and for whatever political purposes it serves, Istook
clearly is at loggerheads with Jennifer Dorn, administrator of the Federal
Transit Administration, which has put its stamp of approval on Sound
Transit's $500 million grant to help build the 14-mile light rail line.

Istook's concerns apparently boil down to how Sound Transit would fund
its share of the light rail project if the state Supreme Court deems initiative
776 constitutional, which would cost Sound Transit about 20 percent of its
overall local funding. Istook -- tutored by Republican Rep. Jennifer Dunn --
worries that other Sound Transit projects (for instance those in Dunn's
district) might be postponed or eliminated to cover light rail costs. But
shouldn't that be a local decision?

it would be helpful if the state Supreme Court were to deliver its long-
awaited I-776 ruling soon.

it would be helpful, too, if the Bush administration would weigh in on this
spat, preferably on the side of its own agency and on the side of the
transportation and environmental benefits of urban transit systems. And
we could use the jobs, too.



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/139073_dispute11.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, September 11, 2003

Light rail caught in the crossfire

U.S. House lawmaker angered by FTA reply

By JANE HADLEY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Seattle's tortured light rail project found itself yet again in the middle of
political crossfire yesterday in the nation's capital.

The chairman of the House subcommittee that hands out federal
transportation dollars sent a scorching letter of disapproval to the federal
agency that announced in July that it planned after 60 days to sign a $500
million full funding grant agreement with Sound Transit.

The letter from Ernest Istook Jr., D-Okla., to Jennifer Dorn, the
administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, complained that "FTA
has been totally unresponsive to my questions and concerns" about the
grant agreement.

Istook threatened that if Dorn signs the agreement with Sound Transit
without satisfying his concerns, he will punish FTA in future budget
decisions.

it is unclear what effect his displeasure will have on the 14-mile light rail
project from downtown Seattle to South 154th Street near the airport.

But even if Istook does not seek to block the project, delay could have
serious consequences.

Sound Transit approved about $100 million worth of bids for initial
construction work on the line that expire Oct. 10. Not only were the bids
highly favorable -- about 15 percent below engineering estimates for the
work -- but redoing the bid process would cost time and money.

The letter focused mostly on Istook's unhappiness with Dorn's response to
a July 28 letter from Istook asking questions about what Sound Transit
would do if the state Supreme Court upheld initiative 776.

The initiative, which was ruled unconstitutional in King County Superior
Court, sought to roll back a 0.3 percent motor vehicle excise tax collected
by Sound Transit.

Istook demanded, among other things, that Sound Transit list which other
transportation projects it would not build if it lost the tax revenue and still
built the $2.49 billion light rail line.

Dorn responded that "the information and actions requested in your letter
go beyond" what FTA by law can require of transit agencies seeking
federal money. Setting transportation priorities is for local decision-
makers, she said. Dorn said FTA was satisfied that Sound Transit could
pay for the project even if 776 is upheld.

"This is a dustup between the House committee and the FTA," said Ric
ilgenfritz, a spokesman for Sound Transit. "We are kind of taking a duck-
and-cover approach."

As for how this could affect the light rail project, ilgenfritz said, "I'm not
reading the letter to slam the door on the project."



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/135054833_soundtimelin
e23m.html

Seattle Times
Thursday, September 11, 2003

Ups and downs in the light-rail funding battle

Nov. 5, 1996: Voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties approve
Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. The Central Link (University
District to SeaTac) light-rail portion slated to cost $1.7 billion (in 1995
dollars) is to be completed by 2006.

August 2000: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) internal report notes
that light-rail costs might rise.

Sept. 6, 2000: FTA asks Sound Transit for clarification on cost increases.

Sept. 7, 2000: Sound Transit tells FTA that light-rail project is $200 million
over budget.

Sept. 8, 2000: FTA forwards $500 million grant to Congress for 60-day
comment period as required by law. Grant agreement includes estimated
project cost of $1.6 billion and completion date of June 2007. No mention
of possible cost overruns.

Nov. 7, 2000: 60-day comment period ends.

Jan. 11, 2001: incoming Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee
Chair Hal Rogers, R-Ky., sends letter to Transportation Secretary Rodney
Slater asking him to defer entering into the agreement until Feb. 12, 2001,
to give him time to understand the agreement and allow for review by the
Bush administration.

Jan. 18, 2001: Slater notifies Congress that agreement is being revised
with $1 billion increase and delay of two years. Assures committee
chairmen that project is still "highly recommended."

Jan. 19, 2001: Slater signs $500 million grant agreement at 8:30 p.m.
after aides to Washington Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Norm Dicks camp
in his office all day. Cost of project: $2.6 billion, to be completed by
November 2009.

Jan. 20, 2001: President George W. Bush inaugurated.

Jan. 25, 2001: Norman Mineta, former Democratic congressman from
California's Silicon Valley, becomes Transportation secretary.

April 4, 2001: Office of inspector General, auditing arm of Transportation
Department, releases audit of Sound Transit, blasting agency and lax
oversight from FTA: "Draft agreement given to Congress for a 60-day
review period materially understated cost and did not meet the intent of
this review."

April 4, 2001: Murray meets with Mineta and sends letter suggesting a
timeout.

April 5, 2001: Mineta announces that Bush's 2002 budget will include no
money for Sound Transit. The agency announces it will hold $49.5 million
appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 2001. However, Mineta notes
that the $500 million grant agreement signed in January "remains in place
for future years."

Aug. 21, 2002: Mineta writes to Murray and authorizes release of the
$49.5 million. He thanks Murray for her "tremendous work on this project."

Sept. 4, 2002: inspector General begins a second audit of Sound Transit.

Feb. 4, 2003: Bush includes $75 million for Sound Transit in his 2004
budget.

May 9, 2003: Mineta tells Murray during a congressional hearing that he
had no reservations about Sound Transit: "I appreciate your work with the
FTA and Sound Transit to bring them to where they are today."

July 7, 2003: Office of inspector General at the federal Department of
Transportation gives high marks to Sound Transit, but expressed concern
about the financial impact of initiative 776, the Tim Eyman-sponsored
measure that would eliminate motor-vehicle fees and taxes above a flat
$30 fee. Voters passed I-776 in November 2002, but a King County
Superior Court judge later ruled that the measure was unconstitutional,
and it is on appeal at the state Supreme Court.

July 11, 2003: Federal Transit Authority submits $500 million grant
agreement with Sound Transit to Congress for 60-day review.

Sept. 10, 2003: Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma, chair of House
transportation spending committee, writes letter to Federal Transit
Administration expressing his "formal disapproval" of the grant agreement.




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

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, September 19, 2003

Monorail board to hire financial experts

By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Trying to bolster flagging confidence that they can build Seattle's
expanded monorail line, project leaders said yesterday they will hire a
consultant and recruit a panel of experts to double-check their financial
estimates.

The move comes after revelations that the project's sole source of funding
-- the motor vehicle excise tax narrowly approved by Seattle voters last fall
-- has thus far brought in about 30 percent less than expected.

"We need to restore some of the confidence the public may have had
shaken and perhaps some of us (monorail board members) may have
had shaken with our revenue situation so we can move forward," said
finance committee chairwoman Sue Secker, Seattle University's vice
president for planning and associate provost.

The Seattle Monorail Project board's finance committee approved creating
the panel and hiring the consultant, Oakland, Calif.-based Cambridge
Systematics, for up to $52,600. The full monorail board is expected to give
final approval next month.

While both monorail critics and supporters applauded the move, it did little
to answer the question of where exactly the project stands.

Cleve Stockmeyer, a candidate for one of two open monorail board seats
and co-author of one of the three monorail initiatives Seattle voters have
approved, said there's a "disconnect" between the apparent revenue
shortfall and the agency's assurances a high-quality project will still be
built.

That's undermining the public's trust in the agency, he said. Stockmeyer
urged the agency to say how much below the $1.75 billion budget the
agency would have to live with.

"In the words of Dr. Phil, 'it's time to get real,' " Stockmeyer said.

But monorail officials have said it's difficult to tell at the moment precisely
where things stand, except that they believe the 14-mile, Ballard-to-West
Seattle line can be built. To figure out how much the agency will have to
spend, it must first figure out how much all the vehicles liable for the tax
are worth. That would say how much the monorail's 1.4 percent monorail
motor vehicle tax will raise.



Then, the project will need to figure out how much that amount will grow
over the decades as the number of vehicles goes up.

The monorail plan assumed the vehicles liable for the tax were worth $4.5
billion. But the tax has raised about 30 percent less than anticipated since
the state Department of Licensing began collecting it in June.

Should the trend hold, the tax base would be $3.12 billion -- about $1.4
billion less than the project had planned. At the same time, the project
wants the state to begin taxing used out-of-state cars when they're first
registered in Washington, instead of a year later when their tabs are
renewed.

Project leaders are also working with the state to crack down on people
who may be evading the tax by registering their cars outside the city. Both
those moves could shrink the shortfall, but by how much is unknown.

Monorail officials don't expect to have a handle on how much money they
will have to spend on the project until around January.

if money is tight, the authority might have to choose less expensive
options in designing stations and the route. But it could also just leave the
tax in place longer.

Or, as monorail critic Joel Paston suspects, the monorail authority could
find its financial problems are too severe to build the project at all. "it
appears the project is undercapitalized, and most projects that are
undercapitalized fail," Paston said.

P-I reporter Kery Murakami can be reached at 206-448-8131 or
kerymurakami@seattlepi.com



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

Seattle Times
Friday, September 19, 2003

Firm to examine how monorail overestimated car-tab revenue

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

An independent firm will probe how the Seattle Monorail Project wound up
overestimating how much money it could collect from a new car-tab tax.

in addition, a volunteer panel of four experts will review the monorail's
future revenue forecasts, double-checking the work now being done by
monorail consultants.

The monorail project's Finance Committee unanimously approved both
measures yesterday morning. The independent review will be done by
Cambridge Systematics of Oakland, Calif., which specializes in
transportation. For a contract price of up to $52,664, the firm will issue a
report next month.

"My goal here is to restore a confidence the public may have had shaken
... so we can move forward," said committee Chairwoman Sue Secker,
who is vice president for planning at Seattle University.

She joined the monorail board in June, without being informed of earlier
financial oversights.

in 2002, Seattle voters approved a motor-vehicle excise tax to build a 14-
mile Green Line from Crown Hill in the north to the Morgan Street Junction
in the southwest. Tax rates are $85 per $10,000 of vehicle value,
expected to go up to $140 in June.

But tax collections have been coming in at two-thirds of what had been
estimated. The monorail plan last year estimated the tax base (the total
value of taxable vehicles in Seattle) at $4.5 billion. But the actual
collections are as if the tax base was only $3.1 billion.

Cambridge Systematics also will analyze the true tax base in Seattle.

The price tag for the voter-approved monorail Green Line is estimated at
$1.75 billion.

Peter Jobs, an engineer speaking at yesterday's meeting as a member of
the public, urged the agency to immediately begin "value engineering" to
find cheaper construction options. He said the monorail appears on the
brink of busting its budget and could save perhaps 15 percent by
designing for lower costs now.

Joel Paston, a critic of the agency, said he was able to buy a database of
local vehicles from the state for only $62 and received it on a single
compact disc.

"All the claims about the difficulty of assessing this 'unfathomable' DOL
(Department of Licensing) database are just nonsense," he said.

Monorail executive director Joel Horn has blamed the estimating problems
on a lack of solid information from the state Department of Licensing and
Sound Transit last year. Last week, he said the cost to get an entire
database from the state agency would have been $500,000, at a time
when the Elevated Transportation Co. (ETC), predecessor to the Seattle
Monorail Project, was on a shoestring budget.

in follow-up interviews, Horn said the $500,000 actually represents the full
cost to program the state's aging computers and implement the tax. He
calls the $62 database merely "a snapshot in time."

Horn said a similar database acquired by the ETC last year contained
major errors — among them, thousands of cars from the south suburbs
were shown as being in Seattle.

Horn said recent data studies suggest that 2 percent of vehicles in the city
that should be taxable do not show up that way in state data. The Seattle
Monorail Project continues to audit a state database for nontaxed
vehicles.

The monorail agency is also trying to reduce tax evasion. The state
Department of Licensing is studying a rule change to require that drivers
use their home addresses when renewing license tabs. That would make
it more difficult for someone to avoid the tax by using an out-of-city post
box as an address.

The agency also has established that the average value of taxable city
cars is only $8,643 — less than the $10,000 figure publicly cited in last
year's pro-monorail campaign.

Chairman Tom Weeks said the $10,000 figure originated in early 2002,
when monorail planners thought they would be able to tax new cars. In
August 2002, the state determined that only used cars are charged
monorail tax.

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




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

http://www.zwire.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10179121&BRD=855&PAG=
461&dept_id=513931&rfi=6


The Queen Anne News
The Magnolia News
 09/17/2003

City Council prez moves to halt monorail route thru Seattle Center


By Russ Zabel

Doubts on the Seattle City Council about the wisdom of routing the
monorail across Seattle Center grounds surfaced again last week when
council president Peter Steinbrueck announced that he was proposing a
resolution that would prohibit such a move.

"Seattle Center is a centerpiece of our city's urban landscape and our
most cherished green space for public gathering and reflection," he said in
a press release. "We can't allow it to be ruined."

Council members Nick Licata, Judy Nicastro and Richard Conlin either
support Steinbrueck's resolution or have serious concerns about the
cross-Center route, according to Martin Munguia, Steinbrueck's aide.

The rest of the council remains divided on the issue, with two members
supporting the cross-Center route and the others undecided, Munguia
said. "This will force them to make the call," he said of the resolution.

Jane Zalutsky, president of One Reel and a harsh critic of the cross-
Center route, said her organization supports Steinbrueck's proposed
resolution. "We don't believe you need to sever the Seattle Center; you
need to serve the Seattle Center," she said.

Zalutsky conceded that judging how much impact a cross-Center route
would have is a subjective decision, but she also said hundreds of millions
of dollars have been invested in the Seattle Center. "In our organization's
opinion, the risk is too great," she said of the group that puts together
Bumbershoot every year.

it's not just festivals such as Bum-bershoot that will be affected by the
monorail if it shoots across the Seattle Center; other events such as the
9/11 memorial services two years ago would have been disturbed by the
monorail, Zalutsky said.

Seattle Center director Virginia Anderson said she was surprised when
she heard about Steinbrueck's resolution. "He called and left a message,"
she said.

But Anderson isn't convinced the so-called Northwest Route would ruin or
desecrate the Queen Anne attraction. "There's no perfect solution.
There's a lot of subjective feeling about it," she added.

Some object to the idea that a monorail would run overhead every four or
five minutes, but others say the potential disruption would last only several
seconds at a time, Anderson said.

There are also tradeoffs if the Mercer Street route is chosen, she noted.
Anderson also has another concern tied into the route choice: "I would
worry the Center ... might get characterized as more pastoral than it is."

A look at the dense crowds that show up for Bumbershoot and other
festivals at the Seattle Center disproves that notion, she said.

And Anderson denied that the Seattle Monorail Project is running
roughshod over neighborhood and city sensibilities.

"I have to say, the monorail people have worked hard to make the design
as respectful as possible," Anderson said.

Monorail Project staffers have been working closely with all of the Seattle
Center organizations to come to a consensus on which route would be
best, monorail spokesman Paul Bergman said. "So we think what we've
got is a good decision-making process."

Cost estimates haven't been drawn up yet for the potential routes through
or around the Seattle Center, he said, but the cross-center route is
definitely still on the table.

"There's a lot of support for the Northwest Route," Bergman said. "Our
hope," he added, "is all of the people will wait till all the information is in
place before any decisions are made."

That information will include public comment gathered at two upcoming
hearings. The city council's Neighborhoods, Arts and Civil Rights
Committee has scheduled a public hearing about Steinbrueck's resolution
on Sept. 23. The meeting will take place in council chambers beginning at
2 p.m.

in addition, the Seattle Monorail Project and the U.S. Coastguard will
jointly hold a public hearing and open house about the Green Line's Draft
Environmental impact Statement on Sept. 29. That meeting and open
house will take place in the Northwest Rooms at the Seattle Center from 1
to 3 p.m. and from 5 to 9 p.m., with city council members expected to
arrive at 5 p.m.

Staff reporter Russ Zabel can be reached at rzabel@nwlink.com




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

http://seattlemedium.blackpressusa.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID
=31929&sID=4

The Seattle Medium
9/17/2003

City Council Okays Monorail Permit Framework

by Seattle Medium

Final public hearing, verification of revenue among Council's requirements

The Seattle City Council unanimously voted to amend the City's land use
code to make the monorail a permitted use. The changes permit such an
elevated transportation system to build stations up to 65 feet in height and
clarify which City departments have authority over private property and
public rights of way.

in addition to the code changes, the Council also approved two
resolutions that set priorities for the monorail project that will pave the way
for final Council approval of the system next year. The resolutions are
designed to allay public concerns that have been raised about the
monorail's possible impact on communities along its route, and ensure a
seamless regional transit system.

in the first resolution, the Council asserted that it will approve specific
design guidelines for monorail stations and alignment that the City's
Monorail Review Panel will then use as it works with the Seattle Monorail
Project (SMP) to come up with final designs. The Council said it wants
those design guidelines to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and adopted neighborhood plans, and that the SMP should
adequately mitigate any adverse impacts that the monorail and its
construction might cause in any neighborhoods. The Council also will
review the sequence of monorail construction segments and will require
"substantial evidence" that the entire 14-mile Green Line is capable of
being constructed within the budget described in the voter-approved
Seattle Popular Monorail Plan in 2002.

The resolution also calls for the Council to hold a public hearing after
receiving the SMP's final environmental impact statement, expected early
next year. After the hearing, the Council must approve the final alignment
and design plan before the City can issue permits for construction.
"This sets up a permitting framework with clear thresholds for meeting City
approval," said Councilmember Nick Licata, who chairs the Council
committee that deals with monorail issues. "We're also sending a
message that the Council is very interested in ensuring a project that
works for all our communities."

A second resolution that was also passed calls on the SMP to provide
adequate bicycle storage at stations and to allow for bicycles to travel on
monorail cars. It also states the City's intent to work cooperatively to
develop a monorail system that offers transit mode connectivity.



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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/140281_ltrs19.html

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Friday, September 19, 2003

Letters to the Editor

MONORAIL

Running through Center enhances the 'people' place

So how is it that Peter Steinbrueck can claim that the monorail will "ruin"
the Seattle Center, which already features a roller coaster, Ferris wheel
and bumper cars? Open your eyes, Peter. The Seattle Center is about
people and activities, not about reflecting and solitude. I think the monorail
enhances the Center.

Malcolm R.D. Donnelly
Seattle


Green Line will scar Seattle's pretty face

The proposed Green Line monorail route -- no matter how lily-like its
columns -- is going to create a Frankenstein-like scar on the face of
Seattle.

Promoters of this route have kept its true impacts under wraps and, even
now, the draft environmental impact statement underplays the tragic
effects such a skybridge from hell will have:

Seattle Center will be split.

Downtown's western views that are, as much as anything else, what gives
Seattle its special beauty, will have a jagged rip across them.

The monorail must find more appropriate routes or be killed before it
permanently scars us.

A public hearing on the EIS will be held Sept. 29 from 1-3 p.m., and from
5-9 p.m. with open house spanning the whole time period. City Council
members will be there during the evening session. The hearing will take
place in the Northwest Rooms at the Seattle Center.

in order for the Green Line to be realized as it is proposed, Seattle's land
use code has to be turned into an instrument that can threaten any place
and every place.

Please, Seattle, change course while you still can.

Jill Janow
Seattle


City can build everything but a good transit system

I am a totally disgusted citizen of Seattle. The town that builds symphony
halls, opera houses, sports stadiums, convention centers, libraries,
community centers, shopping centers, parks and a new City Hall just
cannot seem to get a decent mass transit system built.

Here we go again, stuck in the proverbial traffic with no end in sight. We
have the foundation of two transportation systems -- three if you include
the streetcar -- and we cannot get any of them built. Why can't the mayor
and City Council, King County executive and County Council, the
governor, secretary of transportation, state Senate and House members
and our U.S. Senate and House members put their collective minds
together and work out all these problems?

The issues that Rep. Ernest Istook has raised regarding light rail should
be easily resolved and light rail construction should begin within two
weeks. The issues that the Seattle City Council raised regarding the
monorail should be worked through and construction should begin in a
year.

Has the City Council accepted the $3 million that the state is giving the
city for the streetcar and will it accept another $3 million that may be
coming from the federal government? I will take the $6 million and start
my own streetcar system if no one wants to. We are at risk of building no
mass transportation system. What a wonderful legacy we will be leaving
our children. Instead of the beginning of one of the best transportation
systems in the country with a beautiful new light rail, monorail and
streetcar system, coupled with the ferry and bus system, the commuter
rail system all tied together in a refurbished King Street Station, we may
not build anything.

Thirty years from now, we all still will be sitting in traffic on I-5 asking
ourselves, "Why didn't we do something 30 years ago?"

Michael Arnold
Seattle








CONTENTS

* Denton (N of Dallas) OKs tax for rail transit
   Denton Record-Chronicle Sunday, September 14, 2003

* Ft. Worth suburb votes out of transit authority
   Ft. Worth Star-Telegram Sun, Sep. 14, 2003

* Seattle: Costly monorail design worries builders
   Seattle Times Thursday, September 18, 2003

* Seattle Times ed: Cut monorail through Seattle Center
   Seattle Times Sunday, September 14, 2003

* Seattle: Background to monorail budget crisis
   Seattle Times Thursday, September 11, 2003

* Seattle: Monorail project finances to be checked
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Tuesday, September 9, 2003

* Seattle monorail board election shows community conflicts
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Monday, September 8, 2003



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

http://www.dentonrc.com/localnews/stories/DRC_Denton__Lewisville.a51
ad922.html

Denton Record-Chronicle
Sunday, September 14, 2003

Denton, Lewisville OK DCTA tax

Measure also passes in Highland Village, fails in Corinth, Flower Mound

By Tom Reedy / Staff Writer



DRC/Hiroyuki Komae
Moving Transit Ahead leader Joe Roy, City Council member Pete Kamp
and Bret Collins react to early voting results in the Denton County
Transportation Authority sales tax election at Mr. Roy's home Saturday.
Corinth, Flower Mound and three small cities — Copper Canyon, Double
Oak and Shady Shores — voted against the sales tax and effectively
removed themselves from the transit system's plans, officials said.



Denton, Lewisville and Highland Village voted Saturday to adopt a half-
cent sales tax to fund the Denton County Transportation Authority and its
plan to build a rail transit line from Carrollton to Denton.

The three member cities will provide the vast majority of the projected
sales tax revenue — $14 million of $15.9 million — making the DCTA
viable, said DCTA board chairman Charles Emery.

"We're happy we have a system, and that's been our objective all along,"
Mr. Emery said. "We're sorry it doesn't include some other folks, but we
can make this thing work, and next week we'll be rolling up our sleeves
and going back to work."

Shirley Spellerberg, a former Corinth mayor who led the opposition Transit
Truth Committee, said she was happy that Corinth rejected the sales tax.

"We clobbered them here in Corinth," she said. "This is really
remarkable."

Ms. Spellerberg acknowledged that the rail line would come through
Corinth anyway, and said that some time in the future the city could
possibly contract with the DCTA for services.

"That's a far sight better than spending our last half-cent sales tax for
something that a handful of people are going to ride," she said.

Mr. Emery said that any cities that come in later would still have to adopt a
sales tax, as well as pay a "buy-in" fee to pay for their share of any
improvements already constructed.

Corinth was a site of early opposition from homeowners who feared the
rail line would run along the city's Rails to Trails hiking and biking trail.

North Central Texas College Provost Lee Ann Nutt said the Corinth vote
means that the college won't get a transit station for students. The school,
located just east of interstate 35E, draws 35 percent of its students from
south of Corinth and more than 40 percent of them from Denton.

"I'm not surprised, to be frank, but I'm disappointed," she said. "I guess
we'll just have to deal with the congestion and the traffic."

Denton provided the largest winning margin, with 58 percent of voters
saying yes to the sales tax. The city also had more than twice the turnout
of Lewisville, with more than 7,400 votes cast to Lewisville's 3,700.

Denton Mayor Euline Brock said the large turnout for the election was
crucial for the authority.

"I think this is a very unusual election," she said. "I kept saying from the
beginning that if we had a big turnout, everything would be OK, because i
knew the anti's would get their people out."

Lewisville voters approved the sales tax by 56 percent to 44 percent.

Lewisville Mayor Gene Carey said he wasn't surprised with the votes in
Denton and Lewisville, but he was hoping that Flower Mound would also
approve the DCTA sales tax.

"It would be nice to have all eight cities on board, but if that doesn't
happen, that's OK," he said. "it's a little bit harder to do what we need to
do, but I think we can make it work with Lewisville and Denton."

The sales tax went down hardest in Flower Mound, with 67 percent of
voters saying no. Although Flower Mound voters approved creating the
authority last November, the town council was very critical of the DCTA
plan, particularly an early provision for countywide bus service.

"I'm not really that surprised," Flower Mound Mayor Lori DeLuca said. "I
think that during the confirmation election last November, Flower Mound
voters showed their support of mass transit, but I think the DCTA took
those overwhelming results and became a little too confident and didn't
listen to the concerns as much as they should have."

Ms. DeLuca said voters in her city lost trust in the DCTA plan as a result.

"It was a lot easier to get people to agree to the idea, but once you start
talking about asking for people's money, they have to feel really confident
of the plan," she said.

The sales tax will be used to fund operations and pay back bond issues
that, along with federal funds, will pay for a commuter rail line from Denton
to Carrollton, where it will connect with Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

The plan includes a scaled-down regional and local bus services and an
elderly/disabled service, along with a supplemental plan that would send a
quarter of the tax revenues back to the cities to be used for local
transportation projects until rail service begins.

State Rep. Burt Solomons of Carrollton started the ball rolling two years
when he wrote a bill authorizing the creation of the authority after talking
to officials from Denton County cities who asked him for money from the
state to build more roads.

The bill sailed through the Legislature. The Denton County
Commissioners Court approved a resolution creating the authority in
September 2001, and an interim executive committee made up of one
representative from each city with a population of more than 12,000 —
Denton, Lewisville, Flower Mound, The Colony and Highland Village —
and three representatives from cities of more than 500 but fewer than
12,000 residents, and another three members to represent the
unincorporated areas of the county. Corinth was later given a seat after its
population exceeded 12,000.

The interim committee first met in November 2001. It was charged with
drafting a transportation service plan to decide which mode of
transportation — light rail, buses or a combination — would best suit the
needs of the different areas of the county, along with a proposed tax rate.
The committee held public meetings to gather resident input at least once
a month.

While some controversy over buses sparked some early skirmishes
among the planners, opposition to the transit plan was weak until a group
of Corinth residents realized that if the Rails-to-Trails corridor were
activated for commuter rail going into Denton, they would have trains
running through their back yards.

Despite the objections, 73 percent of county voters voted to create the
transit authority in November, and the executive board went back to work
fine-tuning the plan and holding more public meetings.

in the month before the sales tax election, more opposition popped up. Its
members said a "yes" vote also would put Denton and Corinth at the
state-mandated sales tax cap, which would mean that those cities would
no longer have the option to vote for sales taxes that could fund crime
control districts or other programs that could help keep property taxes low.

They also said the planned rail line would be used by too few people to
make any difference in either traffic or pollution, and said other options
such as toll roads and double-decked highways would do a better job of
easing traffic.

Staff writer Josh Baugh contributed to this report.

TOM REEDY can be reached at 940-566-6882.



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

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
Sun, Sep. 14, 2003

Lake Worth opts out of the T

By Martha Deller
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Lake Worth voters turned out in sizable numbers Saturday to cast ballots
in favor of opting out of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority that has
provided bus service there since 1991.

Of the 417 residents who cast ballots during early voting or on Saturday,
173 voted to continue the T in Lake Worth and 244 voted to discontinue it,
City Manager Joey Highfill said.

Voter turnout also was high in Grandview, where voters approved a $1.2
million school bond package to expand the high school and refinance $1.9
million in old bonds, and in Dalworthington Gardens, where residents
voted to continue a half-cent sales tax to pay police salaries.

City and school officials attributed the voter turnout to the heightened
interest over the state constitutional amendments.

"This is higher than we had in the last three or four elections," Highfill said.

Linda Humphreys, a city election official, agreed. "For a pretty Saturday,
it's been a pretty heavy turnout," she said. "It has been really remarkable.
We might even break a record today."

Saturday's decision by Lake Worth residents directing city officials to get
out of the T is a turnaround from 1996, when a determined group of
residents with disabilities defeated a previous referendum on eliminating
the T.

This time, however, the leader of the 1996 pro-T campaign came out
against continuing the service.

"I am delighted," said Allen Cole, a visually impaired resident who led the
1996 pro-T campaign. "I fought for the T the first time around and the T
started doing us wrong so I fought to take the T out. They kept cutting
routes and changing rates, so I campaigned against them hard and fast."

Highfill said bus service to residents will not be interrupted. City officials
are negotiating with other companies to take over services now provided
by the T with the half-cent sales tax that raised more $1 million last year,
he said.

"Our council can't approve someone until we canvass the votes Thursday
night," Highfill said. "But Friday morning, we'll have somebody ready to
go."

in Grandview, 453 residents voted on a $1.2 million bond issue to add 13
classrooms at the high school. It won by about 65 percent of the vote --
295 for, 158 against the proposition, Superintendent Lynn Whitaker said.

A separate proposition giving school trustees the authority to refinance
$1.9 million in lease-purchase bonds used to build the intermediate school
also passed with 271 votes for, 164 against, Whitaker said.

"We're pleased with the outcome," he said. "Our residents are very
supportive of our schools. Now we can get busy with plans to start
construction."

The authorization to refinance the other bonds will allow the school board
to move six cents of the tax rate to the debt service side, freeing up six
cents on the maintenance and operating tax, which is now at the $1.50
cap, Whitaker said. That money is used for teacher salaries and other
operating costs, he said.

in Dalworthington Gardens, residents voted 381-63 to extend the half-cent
sales tax used to pay the salaries of two police officers. Voters first
approved the five-year crime control and prevention district in 1998. The
tax pays the salaries of two of the nine paid officers and has also bought
new police cars and other equipment.

Susan Schrock and Don Chance contributed to this report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Deller, (817) 390-7857 mdeller@star-telegram.com




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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001734467_monorail18
m.html

Seattle Times
Thursday, September 18, 2003

Agency eyes increase in costly pillars for monorail

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter


[GRAPHIC]
ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA
A photo illustration shows the proposed Green Line monorail, with
innovative, and costly, "iris" columns, on Second Avenue in Seattle.



Despite a shortage in tax proceeds, the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP)
staff is flirting with the idea of adding more of the costly "iris" columns
along the proposed Green Line.

Lead designer Alan Hart mentioned at a committee meeting Tuesday that
the agency is considering irises at 14 of the 19 stations — an increase
from the 11-station scenario unveiled in April.

The innovative columns, shaped like the flower, split into two stalks that
each hold a monorail track, at different levels. That enables passengers to
board either the northbound or southbound trains from a tall, compact
station on just one side of the street — instead of requiring a larger
structure with boarding platforms on both sides.

But the proliferation of irises has made potential builders uneasy. The
columns would be about 45 feet tall and require stronger materials than a
generic T-shaped post. Between stations, irises require an emergency
catwalk in each direction, while traditional monorails can share a single
catwalk in the center.

And because of their height, irises need an underground foundation twice
as large, to protect against earthquake forces, according to Six Silva, an
executive with the "Cascadia Monorail Co." team, which was formed by
Washington Group international and Fluor Enterprises, and features
roomy Hitachi trains.

"Our general sense is that the cost is increasing at a time when
anticipated revenue is approximately 30 percent below the original plan,"
Silva said yesterday.

That plan, issued in June 2002, assumed traditional T-shaped columns
like those on the existing Seattle Center Monorail, only leaner and farther
apart. The new Green Line would require roughly 700 columns.

The iris debate represents a potential collision between dreams and
reality in the next few months. Tax revenues are one-third below
estimates in the long-term financial plan. The monorail Finance
Committee meets this morning at 7:30 to consider its next moves, among
them a possible outside review.

Tom Horkan, the SMP's construction director, said that while irises cost
more than traditional posts, the expense could be offset by lower land
costs, because tall stations require less property.

He said he understands the builders' nervousness, but said they are
looking only at one issue in isolation.

"I don't think they have the true picture of right-of-way costs, station size,
station cost and the impact on neighborhoods," he said.

Horkan repeated the recent agency pledge, echoed by monorail Chairman
Tom Weeks and the Seattle City Council, that groundbreaking will not
happen unless the agency proves it has enough money to build the entire
14 miles from Crown Hill to Morgan Junction. Preliminary budgets include
$1.3 billion for construction, control systems and trains, out of an overall
spending of $1.75 billion.

A detailed cost comparison between irises and generic design should be
ready in early December, said Horkan.

The other potential construction group, "Team Monorail," warned about
iris costs at an open meeting in April. Darryl Goodson, of Granite
Construction, said irises would raise "civil construction costs" (which are in
the neighborhood of $200 million to $250 million) by 20 to 25 percent. The
Team Monorail package would include Bombardier trains, now being
tested on a new Las Vegas line.

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



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2001727777_mon
oed14.html

Seattle Times
Sunday, September 14, 2003

Editorial

Through Seattle Center for a better monorail


The Seattle City Council should reject the resolution proposed by Council
President Peter Steinbrueck that would have the new monorail go around
the Seattle Center. The best route goes through the Seattle Center.

in either case, the stations would be the same: one on the northwest edge
of the Center and just outside the southeast edge. The dispute is how to
connect these two points. The through-the-Center route goes around the
northern edge of the central plaza; the other route goes around the
northern edge of the entire Seattle Center property, along Mercer Street.

Steinbrueck objects to going through the Center because it would be
disruptive to events. He imagines Folklife, Bumbershoot or a stadium
event with a monorail whooshing by every four minutes. "It would be very
distracting," he says.

But this is not a secluded glen; it is Seattle Center, an urban destination
that draws some 10 million people a year. Having an unusual form of
transit whooshing overhead is not out of place there.

indeed, a monorail was part of the original Century 21 Exhibition. Since
1962, Seattle has lived with a tourist monorail; "It could be grand," says
Virginia Anderson, the Center's director, to have a transit monorail.

it might even help market the place — and Seattle itself.

in a more down-to-earth vein, a shorter route works better as transit. It
would save several millions of dollars in construction money, a big thing
for a system that has just been told its revenues are less than projected.

The monorail board has made a promise that if it can't build the system for
the promised amount, it will not build at all, which means that any large
cost overrun puts the entire system at risk.

Our argument is not that it is wrong for the City Council to oversee the
monorail project. At the Seattle Center, and on city streets, the city is the
lawful regulator. It can intervene. But it should do so only with good
reason, which here it does not have.



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001724185_monorail10
m.html

Seattle Times
Thursday, September 11, 2003

Missteps add up to monorail crisis

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

The new car-tab tax for Seattle monorail sounded like an ideal way to
finance a new transit line.

The tax was progressive because it was based on the vehicle's value,
hitting owners of the most expensive sport-utility vehicles and luxury cars
hardest. The tax was green, because people who gave up their cars in
favor of buses, bikes or monorails would not have to pay.

Best of all, it was lucrative — historically, motor-vehicle-excise-tax (MVET)
revenues had risen 6 percent a year, the monorail officials asserted.

But when the tax went into effect this summer, initial collections trickled in
at only two-thirds the pace needed to sustain the Seattle Monorail
Project's long-term financial plan for the $1.75 billion, 14-mile Green Line.

How did the agency get into this predicament?

Documents show a number of reasons, including garbled communications
with other agencies, imperfect legislation and a reliance on flawed
estimates.

People for and against the project are now calling for outside scrutiny.
Sue Secker, a new monorail-board member who chairs the finance
committee, said that next week she would seek an independent review of
why the tax forecasts went wrong. She will also propose seeking outside
experts to help oversee the financial forecasting.

Asked this week how confident she was that the monorail effort would
continue, she said she couldn't answer that question until the reviews
were done.

What went wrong


After years of being dismissed as dreamers and zealots, monorail backers
achieved a political miracle in early 2002. The Legislature authorized the
Elevated Transportation Co., a tiny agency sustained and funded by
citizen initiatives, to seek a voter-approved tax to construct the nation's
first citywide monorail system.

The bill allowed four potential taxes, including a 2.2 percent annual excise
tax on motor vehicles. The ETC board decided to put all its eggs in one
tax basket: a proposed car-tab tax of $140 per $10,000 of vehicle value.
The group rejected three other options: a property tax, a flat car-licensing
fee of as much as $100 and a tax on rental cars.

But there was a hitch. The law said the vehicle tax would be collected at
"relicensing," a word that would trigger disputes over whether new cars in
Seattle would be off the monorail tax rolls.

The amount of money available to build the monorail would depend on the
value of all motor vehicles, known as the "tax base," within Seattle city
limits.

Alec Fisken, a former investment banker who chaired the ETC finance
committee in early 2002, worried about depending on one tax but did not
prevail. He also had qualms about a prediction by the agency that car
values would rise 4 percent a year.

"My argument, which I raised vigorously at the time, was, 'Look, if there's
that much increase in the value of cars for everyone in the city, and
inflation is (only) 2-1/2 to 3 percent, this implies that cars ultimately
become an increasingly valuable part of everyone's assets. Is that really
going to happen?' " Fisken recalled.

The forecasts


in April 2002, the consulting firm Berk & Associates estimated the tax
base at $4.3 billion without new cars and $5.3 billion with them.

The ETC hired a second consultant, Daniel Malarkey, former managing
director of ECONorthwest, who estimated the tax base at $4.5 billion to
$4.75 billion, with annual growth of 4.7 percent.

To arrive at its numbers, the ETC figured its car base was about 85
percent of Sound Transit's "North King" area encompassing Seattle,
Shoreline and Lake Forest Park. Problem is, Sound Transit's numbers
were off.

For five years the agency had included in the North King taxing area some
suburban ZIP codes south of Seattle, inflating the totals 16 to 17 percent.
Sound Transit asked the state Department of Licensing, which collects
car-tab taxes, to fix the database, which it did on June 23, 2002.

But the monorail was never notified.

That mistake accounts for about half of today's monorail-tax gap.

in hindsight, says monorail activist Peter Sherwin, the ETC should have
paid for and thoroughly studied a full vehicle database from the state and
should have been in frequent communication with Sound Transit budget
staff.

Monorail Executive Director Joel Horn, defending Malarkey, who is now
the monorail's finance director, replied yesterday that a full database
would have cost $500,000 to obtain.

"We were working under a very tight budget with citizen activists urging us
to stop spending money, lay off staff, shut down, right at the time we were
dealing with these issues."

Sherwin wonders why the two agencies failed to notify the ETC, while the
DOL and Sound Transit said the topic never came up in contacts with the
monorail group.

"We didn't have discussions of any depth in summer 2002 regarding the
MVET base," said Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick.

The loopholes


Auto-dealers lobbyist Jim Boldt recalls that the tax legislation was clearly
meant to exclude new cars.

Monorail-board member Cindi Laws, involved in the lobbying, said there
were 20 amendments flying around Olympia on the monorail bill. The ETC
agreed to let what it considered ambiguous language get through the
Legislature rather than risk winding up with no bill at all, she said.

The monorail agency spent the summer of 2002 attempting to slip new
cars into the tax base.

in a legal memo dated July 31, a monorail lawyer argued that the word
"relicensing" meant the monorail tax might be imposed on new cars at the
time of license renewal. In other words, car owners would pay both the
first year's and the second year's taxes at the same time — a double
whammy 12 months after purchasing a new car.

Auto dealers were incensed, and the DOL agreed with them that new cars
should be left out.

Malarkey's forecast — which served as the foundation of the voter-
approved "Seattle Popular Monorail Plan" — adjusted the figures
downward to encompass only used cars.

However, the monorail plan, published Aug. 5, didn't mention the new-car
exclusion. In a mid-October debate, ETC Chairman Tom Weeks publicly
acknowledged that new cars were exempt.

Another risk for the monorail was that Seattle car owners could avoid the
tax by registering vehicles to postal addresses outside the city limits.

The spreadsheets


Deduct your monorail tax


The car-tab taxes paid by Seattle residents for monorail and the smaller
Sound Transit car-tab tax paid throughout the metro area can be
deducted from taxable income as reported on internal Revenue Service
Form 1040 — reducing your federal income-tax bill. The monorail and
Sound Transit taxes qualify as deductible property taxes, because they
are based on vehicle value. Look on Schedule A for Line 7, labeled
"Personal Property Taxes." However, the state's flat $30 state car-tab fee
and the $15 car-tab fee for county highways are not deductible.


When the final votes were counted Nov. 20, Citizen Petition No. 1, to pay
for the monorail, passed by 877 ballots.

The next day, Malarkey pressed the state Department of Licensing for
vehicle data divided into several categories, including a separate coding
for the new cars. A DOL economist, Mike Evans, sent a chart listing the
tax base at $7 billion.

Malarkey challenged that number.

Evans realized that he didn't calculate depreciation correctly, and a few
weeks later, he shipped a corrected spreadsheet showing a bottom line of
just under $6 billion.

Malarkey didn't notice that this new spreadsheet included a column
containing new cars, as well as cars getting licensed in Washington state
for the first time — neither of which were taxable. Those comprised almost
half the $6 billion.

On Feb. 1, the agency hired ECONorthwest, Malarkey's former firm, to
perform detailed tax forecasting, at a time when the monorail agency
hoped to sell $750 million in bonds.

Ted Helvoigt of ECONorthwest noticed on Feb. 24 that the actual tax base
looked low, but Malarkey recalls that the monorail staff did not receive that
message.

The early bond sale was abandoned a few weeks later when board
member Richard Stevenson, a downtown developer, argued that there
was no need to sell bonds prematurely, sticking taxpayers with $150
million in costs to retire the debt in the event that the project was aborted.

The board passed a budget and cut taxes to $85 per $10,000 of vehicle
value from June 2003 to May 2004. But the new numbers were predicated
on the bad $6 billion base.

Malarkey and Horn said it seemed reasonable at the time to rely on a
number furnished by a state economist.

A DOL spokesman, Brad Benfield, emphasizes: "The decision to impose
a (motor-vehicle-excise tax) of 1.4 percent was made before we ever
became involved."

The crisis


On April 9, a "prebill" statement from the DOL showed that the car-tab
bills for June would include $2.6 million worth of monorail taxes, far below
the monorail budget. Actual dollars would be even less because some
drivers would get rid of their used cars or would evade the tax.

Malarkey reacted in an e-mail, saying such a low amount suggested a tax
base of $3.6 billion, "which seems off by at least $1 billion based on what
Sound Transit collects from the North King zone."

Two days later, Evans, the state DOL's economist, said the tax base
would be $3.3 billion.

Monorail officials could have issued a public warning at that point, but
Horn says the tax was in a "debugging" phase and the true situation
wasn't clear.

By July, when skeptic Joel Paston posted on his Web site that actual June
collections were low, monorail staffers downplayed the significance of
early numbers.

"In discussion with board members, getting it correct was more important
than getting it (out) quick," Horn said this week.

The information was first shared with Chairman Weeks and Vice Chair
Kristina Hill. Other board members were gradually notified, in private,
through July.

"There's proof they tried to gloss this over for as long as they could," says
Dick Falkenbury, the former cab driver who founded the city monorail
movement. "What they were hoping, against hope, was that it wouldn't be
that bad."

Secker, a vice president for planning at Seattle University, joined the
board June 4 and was not told beforehand about the tax turmoil.

"There's no question about it, this has been troubling to me. This had not
been brought to my attention when I was being recruited as finance chair."

Last week, the monorail board approved a $70 million line of credit. Geof
Logan, a legal-documents researcher and harsh critic of the agency,
accuses it of plunging the public into debt.

"Perhaps, the best thing for this project is to roll it up right now, before any
more millions are wasted," he said.

Monorail officials pledge that they will not use the line of credit to backfill
the car-tab tax shortfalls. The money has yet to be spent.

Chad Maglaque, a leading Seattle monorail advocate, hopes the shortfalls
will force the agency to discipline itself. The size of stations, the proposed
two-level columns, the alignment, the train capacity, all need to be re-
examined, he said.

"All sorts of organizations go through life, and they're faced with incredibly
dire prospects. The irony is, sometimes that's the best thing that ever
happened to them."

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




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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/138730_monorail09.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Monorail finances to be checked

By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Seattle City Council members plan to review the Seattle Monorail Project's
finances before giving it a final green light next spring.

Council members yesterday said they plan to approve a resolution next
week promising to assess whether there's "substantial evidence that the
entire 14-mile Green Line is capable of being constructed within budget"
before granting approval for the monorail to pass over public property.

The Building Owners and Managers Association and the Downtown
Seattle Association sought the resolution in light of news the monorail's
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax is generating less money than expected.
Monorail strategic planning director Anne Levinson supported the
resolution.

The downtown groups had wanted the council to specify its role in the
project as part of land use changes the council is contemplating. Levinson
said the land use legislation was an inappropriate place to spell out the
council's role.

Council members decided to hold off approving the land use changes until
next Monday. They plan to approve the resolution at the same time. The
downtown groups dropped calls for the monorail authority to begin
building at the ends of the line, in Ballard and in West Seattle. Instead the
resolution calls for the City Council to hold public hearings on the route
and the project phasing.


P-I reporter Kery Murakami can be reached at 206-448-8131 or
kerymurakami@seattlepi.com




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

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/138553_monorail08.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Monday, September 8, 2003

Candidates press ideas to get monorail up and running

By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Joel Egan, who's running for one of the two monorail board seats in next
week's primary election, wants to charge tourists a premium to ride the
West Seattle-to-Ballard line.

James, his twin, who's running for the other seat, has another way to raise
money for the line. Draw those tourists by holding a second Seattle
World's Fair.

They're among a dozen candidates running for the two seats just as the
$1.75 billion monorail project enters a critical phase. Early next year, the
Seattle Monorail Project board will settle key questions, such as whether
the 14-mile line will go through or around the Seattle Center.

Rising to the forefront in the past couple of weeks is how the authority will
pay for it all. The Seattle Monorail Project acknowledged it is collecting
less in taxes than projected.

Among those running for one of the seats is Cleve Stockmeyer, an
attorney who helped write initiative 53. The initiative created the Elevated
Transportation Co., which wrote the monorail plan Seattle voters
approved last year.

Stockmeyer pushed the ETC to allow the public to choose two of the
board's nine members, instead of allowing Seattle's mayor, the City
Council and the ETC to select them all.

The top two finishers in the primary for each of the two seats will go on to
compete in the Nov. 4 general election.

Stockmeyer calls the questions surrounding the monorail's tax revenue a
potential crisis. He wants the agency to create a "menu" that describes
how much the various options under consideration cost. That way he said
the community will know the costs involved when they weigh in on where
the line should run and what the stations should look like.

He favors running the line around the Seattle Center, instead of through it.
He said most people he's spoken with say the center's international
Fountain is sacred.

Another candidate for the seat, Michael Taylor, organized volunteers for
last year's campaign. He's pressing the authority to begin cutting costs
right away by suspending raises and bonuses and imposing a hiring
freeze and across-the-board budget cuts.

He favors running the monorail through the Seattle Center, saying it would
be good advertising for the center's events.

But Ed Hayes, the retired vice president of a cedar siding company, said
the authority should be willing to collect the taxes longer than the
projected 20 years to build the project. Hayes said he would press the
authority to build the line as efficiently as possible. He'd settle the Seattle
Center route by forcing the opposing sides to find a compromise.

Joel Egan, an architect, would charge tourists a premium by selling less
expensive monthly passes or passes aimed at commuters that are good
for only a few hours during two parts of the day. He said neighborhoods
should decide where the line runs by allowing them to overturn the
authority's decisions in a referendum or at a public meeting.

Another candidate, Tim Kerr, is a former state bond manager who worked
on the financing plans for the Washington State Trade and Convention
Center and Seahawks Stadium. Kerr said he'd help the authority save
money by structuring its financing efficiently. He also said it's premature
for candidates to settle on a Seattle Center route until more analysis is
done.

Brent McMillan, a Ballard neighborhood activist, has been focusing on the
project's effect on neighborhoods. He said the authority should be dealing
with issues such as preventing gentrification and traffic. Like the other
candidates, he'd close a loophole allowing Seattle residents to register
their cars at post office boxes outside the city. He favors going around
instead of through the Seattle Center.

But Jim Miller, a consultant who manages telecommunications projects,
said it's premature for other candidates to say how they'd deal with the
monorail's financial uncertainty without more information. Miller said he'd
hold authority staff accountable for producing results. Miller said it was
also premature to take a position on the Seattle Center route until more
detailed studies are done.

in the other monorail race, labor attorney James Egan said the authority
should be willing to delay building stations, in order to get the line started.
He said the authority should publicize the monorail -- perhaps holding a
second World's Fair -- to attract riders. He believes the line should run
through the Seattle Center because it is the most direct route.

Craig Bush, who works in industrial sales, said the authority should close
the loopholes and if necessary phase in construction of the line. He also
favors going through the center.

Cindi Laws was a member of the ETC and was appointed to the monorail
board. Her term, though, ends at the end of the year. Laws, executive
director of a progressive think tank, said reports of the authority's revenue
shortfall are overblown, because the authority may be able to collect more
money by closing its loopholes and shaving costs. She favors going
through the Seattle Center, noting a Seattle Center committee favors that
option.

Chad Mishra, a health and safety compliance officer at Harborview
Medical Center, said the authority should ask voters for a property-tax
increase to fill any shortfalls. He said the neighborhood around the Seattle
Center should decide where the line runs.

Stan Lippmann said he'd use the office as a platform to raise awareness
of the risks in immunizations and to oppose Sound Transit's light rail
project. He's undecided about the route at the Seattle Center.








PTP Digest 2003/09/19

CONTENTS

* Houston: Another GOP lawmaker aims to bollix rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 19, 2003

* Houston: 'Hired gun' to run anti-rail campaign
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 15, 2003

* Houston: 46% plurality support rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 18, 2003

* Houston: Metro board OKs budget for bus & rail
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 18, 2003

* Houston: Mayoral candidate backs rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 12, 2003

* Houston: Mayoral candidate rejects rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 12, 2003

* Responses to Houston anti-rail arguments
   Public Transport Progress 2003/09/14

* Seattle: Oklahoma GOP lawmaker blocks LRT funding
   Seattle Times Thursday, September 11, 2003

* Seattle monorail: 'Nagging doubts are building'
   Seattle Times Wednesday, September 10, 2003

* Seattle monorail: 'A project headed for disaster' (letter)
   Seattle Post-Intelligencer Monday, September 1, 2003



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

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2108599


Houston Chronicle
Sept. 19, 2003

Culberson move puts rail funding in jeopardy

Metro may try to change ballot wording to save plan

By LUCAS WALL

The wrangling over Metro's Nov. 4 expansion referendum took another
dramatic turn Thursday, once again threatening to altogether derail the
plan.

Metro and its supporters thought they had a ballot proposition that finally
attracted some agreement. But they learned Thursday a local member of
Congress released a letter from the Federal Transit Administration stating
the ballot language adopted by the board would make Houston ineligible
for rail funding. That ruling could kill the plan.

The dispute is over whether individual rail segments must be listed on the
ballot. The proposed segments -- 22 miles of light rail financed by a $640
million bond issue and authorization for another 51 miles to be funded
later -- are included in the board resolution. That document is considered
part of the referendum but does not appear on the computerized ballot
screen because of its 22-page length. The ballot simply asks voters to
approve "construction of extensions of Metro's rail system" and other
transit projects.

"Metro's got to have an accurate ballot that tells us what we're buying for
$640 million and where they're going to build it," said Rep. John
Culberson, R-Houston. "They have refused to tell the public precisely how
many miles they are building and where."

Culberson, a fierce rail opponent, used his position on the House
transportation appropriations subcommittee to insert in July a provision --
applicable to no other city -- that no federal rail funds may be given for
"any segment of a light rail system in Houston that has not been
specifically approved by a majority of the participating voters." The 2004
transportation appropriations bill has passed the House and is awaiting
Senate action.

Culberson's release of the FTA letter prompted the Metropolitan Transit
Authority's board of directors to call a special meeting Wednesday to
consider amending the ballot language.

The letter from William Sears, chief FTA counsel, throws Metro's election
into chaos because changing the ballot language within 45 days of an
election might run afoul of the Texas Election Code. And if the language
isn't changed, Houston would see no more light rail in the near future if
the FTA denies federal funding needed to build the lines.

Culberson asked Sears on Sept. 4 for the opinion on Metro's ballot
language, which the board adopted Aug. 18 and tweaked Aug. 28.

in the letter to Culberson dated Sept. 10, Sears responded that "because
the ballot does not identify the segments at issue, section 163 [of the
pending bill] would prohibit FTA funding of the design, construction, or
maintenance of any segments pursued under the authority of that vote."

This week's controversy follows a track familiar to Metro, which was
banned from receiving federal funds for the Main Street light rail line three
years ago. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, objected
because there was no vote on that line. Metro then built the $324 million
project, opening Jan. 1, using its budget.

Culberson's 11th-hour maneuver puts the Metro board in a difficult
position. State law requires an election, including a description of the
measure, to be filed within 45 days of Election Day. For the Nov. 4
election, that deadline is Saturday. But Metro can't convene today or
Saturday because another provision of state law requires 72 hours notice
to hold a public meeting.

The timing of Culberson's release of the FTA letter is not likely a
coincidence. He has battled Metro intensely, arguing the transit plan does
nothing to reduce traffic congestion or improve mobility for his west
Houston constituents. Almost all of Metro's rail expansion would be built
inside Loop 610.

Culberson is counting on residents from outlying areas to defeat the
referendum once they see only inner-city rail lines listed on the ballot.

The proposed lines are no secret, however, having received massive
media coverage in the past few months, and maps are posted on Metro's
Web site. Metro's plan also includes $774 million in street construction --
much of which would be spent outside the Loop -- and increased
commuter-bus service to suburban areas.

Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter issued a statement Thursday evening
that "the board will consider next Wednesday ways to make the ballot
language even more specific and detailed. This might also help Metro
meet any new requirements that come about if proposed federal
legislation becomes law that attempts to hold Houston to a different
standard than any other city in the United States."

The election code is not clear on whether an authority may amend its
ballot measure after the 45-day time limit. David Beirne, a spokesman for
the Harris County Clerk's Office, said the contract Metro has with the clerk
to administer the referendum states any changes must be filed by 9 a.m.
Tuesday. However, he added, another provision states penalties will
accrue if any modifications are filed after Oct. 1.

Beirne said it's a gray area on whether state law permits the changes after
Saturday.

Jonathan Day, a Houston attorney who represents Metro and helped the
board draft the ballot language, said he believes Metro is allowed to make
technical modifications to its language beyond Saturday's deadline.

"When the city of Houston proposes a $150 million bond issue for roads,
they don't list every road on the ballot," Day said. "This is a very unusual
requirement."

Metro's general counsel sent a letter, with the 22-page board resolution
attached, to Sears earlier this week asking him to reconsider his opinion.
The transit authority is waiting on a response. Though the bill is not yet
law, the House rejected earlier this month an effort by Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee, D-Houston, to strip Culberson's amendment.

All the controversy introduces the potential that Metro's referendum could
end up in court.

Day said a lawsuit would be the "absolutely worst-case scenario" that
must be avoided.

"It would be so counter-productive for the community. We want to keep
some of this federal gasoline tax money here and not have these disputes
that would result in our funding given for everybody else's transportation
improvements."




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 15, 2003

Rail opponents call hired gun

By JOHN WILLIAMS

in 1993, as Houston was trying to end its reign as America's last major
city without zoning, Denis Calabrese helped craft a clever slogan used by
opponents of the land-use strategy:

"Zoning without planning is worse than no zoning at all."

The message raised more than just enough doubt among soft supporters
of zoning to kill a citywide zoning referendum. It raised Calabrese's profile
as a political consultant.

Before then, Calabrese had been a mid-level consultant with a thin
résumé. Since then, he has become a sought-after political player with a
thick wallet.

Now, Calabrese is poised to run another high-dollar campaign aimed at
killing a referendum.

This time, the target is Metro's $640 million rail proposal that goes before
voters on Nov. 4.

Rail opponents are still mulling how extensive and expensive a campaign
to mount.

But expect a message similar to the one that worked in the anti-zoning
campaign:

Poorly planned rail is worse than no rail at all.


Wait-and-see approach
Rather than rush to rail, according to this view, Metro would be better
suited to see how its 7.5-mile starter line works after opening in January.
In  the meantime, serious rail planning can be done in conjunction with
other transportation such as highways.

"There is no reason to rush into this," Calabrese said recently. "Let's get
all the facts first and make the correct decision about rail and coordinate it
with other types of transportation."

Enter the Republican world of Calabrese, a Rice University graduate
expert in conservative issues.

in the mid-1980s, Calabrese was a member of the star-crossed Southern
Political Consultants, a group of young Texas Republicans that seemingly
had a bright future.


A checkered résumé
After the firm helped Republicans Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and Beau
Boulter get elected to the U.S. House in the early 1980s, Calabrese went
to work as chief of staff for the hard-charging Armey.

Calabrese later returned to Southern Political, just in time to get caught up
in an episode that killed the firm when some members were convicted of
forging signatures on presidential nominating petitions in 1988.

Calabrese was not part of the scam. But it took time to recover from the
scandal.

The 1991 zoning referendum provided Calabrese with his big break.
Though polls showed most Houstonians favored zoning, Calabrese
teamed with developers Billy Burge and Julio Laguarta to raise vastly
more money than supporters and defeated the grass-roots-generated
referendum.

Calabrese later helped Gary Polland win the job of Harris County GOP
chairman. And he was with former Enron executive Jeff Skilling during his
grilling before a U.S. Senate panel. He has represented a city contractor
that was the subject of a federal investigation. He has been chief
strategist for a group headed by Houston businessman Leo Linbeck that
advocates a national sales tax.

Calabrese has also teamed with Dick Weekly to develop strategy for
Texans for Lawsuit Reform. The group has been the major player in eight
years of work in the Texas Legislature to restrict lawsuits -- including
Proposition 12, the damage-capping constitutional amendment that voters
narrowly approved Saturday.

if that's not enough, he is a marathon runner who has founded USA Fit, a
marathon-training program.

"He's an extremely effective political strategist because he listens well -- a
somewhat rare quality of political consultants," said political consultant
Ken Hoagland, who works with Calabrese in the push for lawsuit
restrictions. "He uses the latest technology in polling and puts together a
powerful message to voters."

in addition to the anti-zoning effort, Calabrese assisted Polland and Harris
County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt to defeat a 1999 arena
referendum.

The rap on Calabrese is that he knows how to get people to vote against
issues, but not for candidates. He is riding a losing streak in some of the
area's costliest races.

He worked for congressional candidates who dumped more than $8.5
million from their own pockets into losing campaigns. The list of GOP big-
spenders includes banker Gene Fontenot, lawyer Phil Sudan and
businessman Peter Wareing.

He also worked in Orlando Sanchez's losing mayoral campaign in 2001.

But that is the past. The rail referendum is the future.

Bettencourt and suburban apartment developer Michael Stevens say they
are close to deciding how much they want to ratchet up opposition to rail.
Both have worked with Calabrese and respect his skills.

To defeat a rail referendum, Calabrese must convey the same type of
message that he did to defeat zoning, and convince voters inclined to
support rail that this plan is a bad one.

"Denis has an advantage on something like this," Bettencourt said,
"because he can see the macro-level and translate it to the grass roots."



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2097867




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

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2106534


Houston Chronicle
Sept. 18, 2003

Metro's plan supported by 46 percent in survey

By LUCAS WALL

Voters who have made up their minds on Metro's Nov. 4 transit
referendum support it 2-to-1, but a third are still pondering their choice,
according to a Houston Chronicle/KHOU-TV poll.

Both sides will be fighting for that large chunk of undecided voters who
could push the outcome in either direction.

Supporters of the $4.6 billion "Metro Solutions" plan -- the centerpiece of
which is a $640 million bond issue to add 22 miles of light rail -- said
Wednesday they are encouraged by the results but acknowledge they
must sell more voters on the benefits of mass transit.

Rail opponents said they take comfort that more voters didn't express
support for the referendum considering the "educational" advertising the
Metropolitan Transit Authority has aired. Opponents, who say the ads
illegally advocate for the referendum, have yet to raise the cash
necessary for a TV campaign.

Government agencies such as Metro may inform voters about an issue
but are prohibited by law from asking them to vote a certain way.

The poll shows 46 percent of voters surveyed said they will vote for
Metro's plan while 21 percent intend to vote against it. The remaining
voters were undecided or didn't answer.

"These numbers, only 46 percent in favor, are fairly surprising considering
most voters have only heard one side of this issue," said David
Hutzelman, director of the Business Committee Against Rail.

The poll of 815 registered voters in the Metro service area was conducted
Sept. 10 through Tuesday by the University of Houston Center for Public
Policy and the Rice University James A. Baker III institute for Public
Policy. Margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

When asked to name the No. 1 problem in Houston, 31 percent of poll
respondents listed traffic, transportation or poor streets. Jobs and the
economy came in second at 30 percent.

Most impressive for rail supporters is the poll's finding that 61 percent of
those surveyed believe rail is a "vital" or "important" part of the region's
comprehensive, long-range transportation solution. Only 14 percent
labeled rail "not important" or believe it "has no place" in the mobility
debate.

"The fact that 61 percent see rail as a vital part of a regional transportation
plan is a clear indication that people are concerned about mobility and
want alternatives and the freedom to choose how they will get where they
want to go," said Ed Wulfe, a real-estate developer leading the political
action committee pushing for passage.

Professors Bob Stein of Rice and Richard Murray of UH -- political
scientists who supervised the polling -- said the proposition appears likely
to win given the strong sentiment that Houston must add rail to its
transportation mix.

Stein said voters outside Houston expressed more support for trains even
though all of Metro's proposed lines would be constructed inside the city
limits.

The plan includes expansion of the commuter-bus system that serves
outlying areas, 44 new bus routes and $774 million in extra road
construction.

Metro will hold 19 public meetings to present the plan between Sept. 24
and Oct. 30.

Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter said the poll is encouraging, though
he'd hoped to see more support.

Michael Stevens, a suburban developer opposed to rail construction, is
weighing whether to lead an effort to kill the plan. Calling it "the largest
waste of taxpayer dollars I have seen."

But Stein said if he were going to launch a campaign against rail, "These
are not the poll numbers I'd want to start with."



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

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2108406

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 18, 2003

Metro board approves $691 million rail budget

By LUCAS WALL

The Metro board unanimously approved a $691 million budget today that
includes money to complete construction of the Main Street light rail line
and begin operating it Jan. 1.

The budget, a 5.5 percent decrease from last year, includes no fare
increase.

While good news to riders, the static fare, when coupled with declining
ridership, means the cost to taxpayers for mass transit will go up next
year. This continues a trend. In 2001, for example, taxpayers subsidized
$1.83 for each passenger boarding. In Metro's fiscal year 2004, which
starts Oct. 1, the subsidy is expected to be $2.79 per boarding.

Metro attributes the sagging ridership to a weakened economy, especially
among downtown energy companies whose employees typically
frequented Metro's commuter buses.

"We're hoping sometime during the next year the economy will turn
around and jobs will start improving," said Metro's Chief Financial Officer
Francis Britton, "That will start improving ridership."

The more fare-paying riders Metro tallies on its buses, the lower the per-
passenger cost to taxpayers because bus expenses are fixed regardless
of whether a bus is full or has five riders.

Metro expects fares will cover only 16 percent of 2004's operating costs,
among the lowest farebox recovery ratios in the transit authority's 25-year
history. Riders will be covering 6 percentage points less of Metro's
operating costs than they did six years ago. Again, Britton said, this is due
to the decline in ridership.

Transit critics argue bus riders should pay a higher share of the costs, but
Metro hasn't raised fares since 1994 because most of its riders are poor
and would be hard hit by a dramatic fare increase, at least a doubling,
called for by groups such as the Business Committee Against Rail.

Metro's expansion plan on the Nov. 4 ballot does include a 20 percent
fare increase by 2007.

Responding to the drop in ridership, Metro is reducing bus service by
about 1.6 percent, a $1.2 million savings. That's in addition to $5.1 million
in bus cuts costs made this year. Metro will also shorten many bus routes
that travel the Main Street corridor into downtown or the Texas Medical
Center, ending such routes at rail stations. That is estimated to save the
authority another $2 million.

No bus routes will be eliminated, though.

Despite the cuts in bus service, Metro's operating budget will go up 2
percent, with most of the increase going for the start up of MetroRail, and
higher costs for bus fuel and labor.

While trimming bus operations, Metro continues with a large capital
investment -- new construction and equipment purchases -- next year of
$417 million. That's 10 percent less than this year's $463.2 million capital
expenditures, a big chunk of which went to build the rail line. The federal
government is expected to cover $217.5 million of the capital budget, with
the remaining $253 million paid with local funds.

The overall budget is dropping because construction on the rail line is
almost finished.

The No. 1 priority next year is completing the 7 1/2-mile Main Street rail
line, the first one in Houston. It is scheduled to open New Year's Day, just
one month before Houston hosts the Super Bowl.

it will cost about $40.7 million to complete the rail line -- money already
part of the project's $324 million overall budget, Metro said. Operating the
trains is budgeted to cost $12.7 million during the first year. Metro will hire
92 new employees for rail operations and support.

But total authority employment will actually drop by 83 positions next year,
Britton said, because open bus-operator jobs will be cut to reflect
reductions in bus service. Metro plans no layoffs, he added.




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 12, 2003

Viewpoints

City needs to get on with business of mobility

By BILL WHITE

Houston is America's great city of opportunity. Opportunity for all requires
economic growth. We can grow and attract new businesses and
Houstonians only if we fix our traffic nightmare.

We can both grow and cut commuting times with attractive neighborhoods
closer to work, better management of traffic on our roads, faster street
repairs, and new transit alternatives, including rail.

So Houstonians should vote "Yes" on the Metropolitan Transit Authority's
plan and bond issue for expanded rail and bus service on Nov. 4.

Metro's overall plan and proposed bond issue contains a substantial
expansion in bus service -- 40 new bus routes and 250 new miles of
express bus service. The plan also builds out rail in phases, so the streets
are not all torn up at once. The financing plan requires no new taxes and
should be matched by a substantial amount of federal funds. Metro's
financing plan and bond issue do not divert the funds needed for street
expansion and repair.

My 43-point Mobility Plan to Get Houston Moving, released early this year,
showed many bold and practical improvements in transportation in our
region to cut commuting time for all Houstonians. Rail is part of the
solution, but not the only solution. The plan includes improved street
repairs, better timing of traffic signals, more flexible hours, and new mass
transit alternatives, including rail.

For example, more flexible working hours are the most effective and
cheapest means of reducing traffic congestion. At companies such as
Dell, more work at home has improved the lives of employees. Our next
mayor must champion this approach with large employers here.

More flexible working hours attack the root cause of the traffic congestion
-- too many people trying to get to the same place at the same time.

Rail addresses congestion in the longer run. Cities develop along rail
corridors, just as they were built along major thoroughfares, such as
Beltway 8. We can't afford to fall behind Dallas and other major cities.

Mayoral candidate Sylvester Turner, in his 1991 bid for mayor,
campaigned against implementation of the 1988 Rail Referendum. Now
he should be commended for supporting the Metro bond issue. (Michael
Berry opposes it and Orlando Sanchez has yet to make up his mind.)

However, in an opinion article on these pages ["Metro caved into few to
detriment of many," Sunday, Aug. 31] Turner said that the Metro board
allowed itself to be manipulated by me and others in designing a rail plan.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Metro board adopted a 70-mile master plan for rail and an ambitious
expansion of bus service. Voters can approve this plan in November. i
and most civic leaders support long-term plans, including this one, that
evolve over decades.

The language on the ballot in November will allow Metro to build Phase II
of the master plan, as adopted by Metro's board, 39 new miles of rail.
Those who claim that the ballot proposition only authorizes 22 new miles
of rail simply have not read the ballot issue.

Finally, the Metro proposal authorizes $640 million in bonds. I first
proposed that Metro should use a prudent amount of debt to accelerate
rail construction. The amount of debt proposed by Metro allows us to build
the same amount of rail for the next 10 years as proposed last spring,
without taking the money from needed general mobility investments.

My counsel was sought by many on issues of how to finance rail
expansion. We provided this information to Metro's leadership, Mayor Lee
Brown, members of the business community and newspapers, radio and
television reporters. Many agreed with the financing analysis because it
made sense, not because of conspiracy.

I publicly supported a larger bond authorization only if Metro's
independent financial experts believed that Metro's future cash flows
would sustain a larger issuance using conservative projections. Metro's
independent financial advisers supported the $640 million amount.

if Metro achieves its optimistic revenue projections and manages cost
well, it should have the cash to build more rail within a decade. Metro's
actual future cash flows and federal funding, not the bond amount,
ultimately define the amount of transit investment.

For a year I have worked to build a new consensus on regional mobility. i
have discussed these issues with thousands of people in civic groups in
every neighborhood, the business community, environmentalists,
members of Congress, national experts, current and past mayors and
Metro board members. Houston should get on with the business of a new
mobility plan, and elect a mayor who can sustain the new consensus and
implement rail and all other needed mobility improvements quickly and
efficiently.


White is a businessman and candidate for mayor of Houston.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2096034



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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 12, 2003

Viewpoints

We don't have to settle for Metro' s bad plan

By MICHAEL BERRY

Houston is being taken for a ride, and all Houstonians should be seriously
concerned about where this train is headed. The Metropolitan Transit
Authority has proposed a problematic multibillion dollar transit solution to
be voted on in November, with most of the money to be spent on new
light-rail lines. Let's take a look at some of the arguments in support of rail
pitched by Metro and its lobbyists:

· Metro Argument 1: We've got to accommodate two 2 million new
residents without traffic gridlock.

Unfortunately, even Metro's own ridership projections show the new rail
lines will handle less than 2 percent of current and new trip growth, with
no noticeable impact on traffic congestion. As a matter of fact, the $2.8
billion rail lines will attract so few new riders versus the existing bus
system that we could buy each new rider a top-of-the-line Mercedes (at
more than $90,000) and still spend less money. Sure, it's tempting to think
everyone else will ride the rails so the freeway will be clear for the rest of
us, but that has not happened in any other city, no matter how much rail
they have built. In fact, studies have shown that Houston has one of the
lowest rates of congestion growth of any major American city -- far lower
than those cities that have implemented light rail.

· Metro Argument 2: Rail will generate wonderful mixed-use, transit-
oriented development that will attract creative young professionals to
Houston.

Yes, this has happened to a limited extent in some cities, but typically only
along the first rail line built, as the demand for this urban lifestyle is quickly
satisfied. Subsequent lines generate little economic development, with
studies showing that the development would have happened somewhere
else in the city anyway.

Without a public vote of support, Metro built its first 7.5-mile line opening
soon along Main Street from downtown to the Astrodome. This line is
almost as long as the island of Manhattan, and should accommodate
Houston's demand for urban lifestyle for a long time.

· Metro Argument 3: We need rail to build our image as a world-class city.

Does it help our image when high rail costs force us to beg for federal
bailout subsidies, like Dallas DART? Or when we have to raise taxes or
slash service, like San Jose, Calif.? Or if we become a laughingstock
when it costs $1.36 to collect a $1 rail fare, like in New Jersey? Or when
some of our most disadvantaged citizens, the transit-dependent, form a
Bus Riders Union and sue Metro to stop bus service from being sacrificed
for rail, as in Los Angeles?

A recent study in the Journal of the American Planning Association
concluded that U.S. rail projects have gone 41 percent over budget on
average. Across the country, rail has resulted in longer commutes as
transit agencies eliminate formerly continuous bus routes and force riders
to transfer to inconvenient rail lines. (Metro itself has estimates that up to
90 percent of proposed Main Street rail line riders were already riding
mass transit: the bus.) These bus-to-rail transfers inflate poor rail ridership
numbers while, ironically, the added inconvenience causes overall system
ridership numbers to drop and, therefore, traffic to increase.

We don't have to settle for a bad plan, just to have a plan. There are
alternatives. Let's start by implementing the following two solutions today:

· Get more from high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Our current HOV lanes run
more than half empty during peak periods and have the potential to move
two to three times as many people per hour. This is a waste of much-
needed capacity.

We should expand and upgrade our HOV network with clean-air buses,
interchanges, two-way service and, importantly, the ability for a single-
occupant vehicle to use the network by paying a variable toll calculated to
keep HOV lanes filled at full speed. Single-occupant cars (the vast
majority of drivers) can choose to pay to drive the HOV by paying a toll,
and the resulting funds can expand and improve the system. HOV bus
and vanpool services can also provide express 60-mph service to all of
Houston's job clusters, not just downtown, which the rail serves.

· Better bus service. Put clean-air buses along Metro's proposed rail
routes at much lower cost. Scrapping just one light-rail line would pay for
all the buses needed to run at proposed rail frequencies on 25 to 50 bus
routes. No waiting until 2012 or even 2008 -- this service can be
implemented now without a decade of busted streets, frustrated drivers
and bankrupted businesses along the rail construction route.

Let's not commit billions of dollars based on slick commercials or the
belief that everyone will trade their car keys for rail. Let's be bold enough
to ask the tough questions, crunch the hard numbers and not give up until
we get the real answers.

Houston is not only a world-class city, it's our home. We made that
choice. Now we have another choice, and we must get it right. We must
all work together to solve our transportation challenges with a realistic,
affordable plan that actually moves people and reduces congestion.



Berry, a first-term at-large Houston City Council member, is a candidate
for mayor.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2096035



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

Public Transport Progress
2003/09/14

Responses to Houston Anti-Rail Arguments

The following are brief responses to some of the Houston anti-rail
arguments presented by Michael Berry.


>>Metro Argument 1: We've got to accommodate two 2 million new
residents without traffic gridlock.
Unfortunately, even Metro's own ridership projections show the new rail
lines will handle less than 2 percent of current and new trip growth, with
no noticeable impact on traffic congestion. <<

This is undoubtedly one of the most hackneyed arguments made by critics
of mass transit and rail.  A good refutation can be found on the website of
Denver's Transit Alliance, at:

http://www.transitalliance.org/response_to_critics.htm

Here's an excerpt from the Transit Alliance response (applicable equally
to Denver, Houston, or virtually any metro area):

"That's a figure [2%] for all trips in the metro region, 24 hours a day,
including freight trips like Fed Ex. It's just not a relevant figure. The
problem we need to deal with is at rush hour -- we don't need additional
capacity, either highway or light rail, to get us to the 7-Eleven store at 10
at night. We need additional capacity on our major transportation
corridors, particularly at rush hour, and that's where transit is most
effective."

The "no noticeable impact on traffic congestion" claim is, in reality, a
"straw man" argument, since (a) virtually NOTHING, including additonal
highway capacity, will noticeably reduce traffic congestion, and (b) major
rapid transit facilities are designed to provide an ALTERNATIVE to traffic
congestion, not "free up" the near-gridlock on the roadway system that
already exists.

Public Transport Progress agrees with the proposition that high-quality,
capacity-enhancing transit improvements such as light rail transit (LRT)
can provide relief for MOBILITY congestion, rather than roadway traffic
congestion.  in this sense, evidence has been emerging that LRT and
other forms of rail transit have indeed had a significant impact on mobility
congestion, particularly in the specific corridors where they've been
installed.  See, for example:

Denver Data Show Light Rail's Real impact on Mobility Congestion
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_den003.htm


>>As a matter of fact, the $2.8 billion rail lines will attract so few new
riders versus the existing bus system that we could buy each new rider a
top-of-the-line Mercedes (at more than $90,000) and still spend less
money.<<

This "argument" incorporates several major deceptions and fallacies:

(1) The fact that it focuses on NEW transit riders (mostly attracted from
automobiles) is glossed over by its perpetrators.  New riders are typically
estimated in the ridership forecasting process for a new major transit
investment, and in fact this estimate has been exceeded in the actual
operating experience of a number of new projects -- so it may be a low-
end figure.

(2) What would be the benefit of buying an expensive new car for new
transit riders already attracted from their own cars because of their desire
to avoid the hassles of traffic congestion and scarce, expensive parking?

(3) The cost of a car is only a relatively small part of the total expense of
adding a vahicle to the already-congested roadway system.  To this must
be added major additional capital costs such those for roadway lanes and
parking spaces to accommodate these additional vehicles.  And then
there are the ongoing costs of operation, incremental roadway
maintenance and management, etc. Incurred in the use of the new luxury
car -- costs ignored by the perpetrators of this argument.

(4) Automobile use -- including use of the new luxury car postulated in this
argument -- incurs a host of EXTERNAL COSTS -- accidents, air
pollution, undesirable land-use impacts, noise, stormwater runoff
problems, etc. -- also not addressed in this argument.

(5) The "buy 'em a Mercedes" argument proposes buying a car for each
rider -- i.e., promoting 1.0 vehicle occupancy, a traffic policy which runs
counter even to the nominal policies of highway proponents and planning
and development agencies, which are struggling to INCREASE vehicle
occupancy.  How does flooding the roadway system with (typically)
thousands of luxury automobiles (hypothetically each driven by a transit
"new rider" wooed back to the automobile) provide any relief for highway
congestion?


>>Sure, it's tempting to think everyone else will ride the rails so the
freeway will be clear for the rest of us, but that has not happened in any
other city, no matter how much rail they have built.<<

Another "straw" argument:  No serious rail transit proponent claims that
"everyone else will ride the rails" and clear the roads.  it can be
demonstrated, however, that rail transit does divert trips that would
otherwise clog the roads, thus making congestion significantly less than it
would otherwise be.


>>in fact, studies have shown that Houston has one of the lowest rates of
congestion growth of any major American city -- far lower than those cities
that have implemented light rail.<<

in fact, the evidence suggests that rail transit may have a significant effect
in slowing the growth of congestion.  One analysis of reliable data
indicates that, in large and very large urban areas, urban areas with rail
transit in major traffic corridors have a lower rate of congestion growth
than do similarly sized urban areas (like Houston) without rail.  See:

Study: Rail Transit May Slow Growth in Traffic Congestion
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00017.htm

>>Metro Argument 2: Rail will generate wonderful mixed-use, transit-
oriented development that will attract creative young professionals to
Houston.
Yes, this has happened to a limited extent in some cities, but typically only
along the first rail line built, as the demand for this urban lifestyle is quickly
satisfied. Subsequent lines generate little economic development, with
studies showing that the development would have happened somewhere
else in the city anyway.<<

Subsequent rail transit lines have, in many cases, developed at least as
much and even more transit-oriented development (TOD) than the initial
"new start" line.  This is evident in the expansion of both rapid rail (e.g.,
Washington Metro and San Francisco-Bay Area's BART) and LRT (e.g.,
San Diego, Portland, Dallas, Denver, St. Louis, etc.).  in Dallas, for
example, EVERY extension of DART's LRT system is attracting some
form of new TOD.

>>Without a public vote of support, Metro built its first 7.5-mile line
opening soon along Main Street from downtown to the Astrodome. This
line is almost as long as the island of Manhattan, and should
accommodate Houston's demand for urban lifestyle for a long time.<<

Houston Metro, of course, did not need a public vote of support since
none was required by law, and the agency had sufficient funds in hand to
construct the line.  Highway departments (like TxDOT) routinely build
huge transportation projects without a public vote -- it's implicit in their
mandate.

To compare central Houston and its single LRT line starter line to
Manhattan (served by 5 heavy-capacity rapid rail lines and a multitude of
regional rail lines), and imply a similarity in "urban lifestyle", seems
patently absurd.


>>Metro Argument 3: We need rail to build our image as a world-class
city.
Does it help our image when high rail costs force us to beg for federal
bailout subsidies, like Dallas DART?<<

Like virtually EVERY major transit agency, DART has been encountering
budget woes from the current sour economy -- but it's addressing these
problems with incremental fare increases, relatively minor service
reductions, and slowing the pace of some expansion projects.  it's
certainly not "begging" for "federal bailout subsidies", and besides, there
aren't any such "bailout" funds available.


>>Or when we have to raise taxes or slash service, like San Jose,
Calif.?<<

Budget problems are not unique to San Jose, and certainly not to its
transit system.  All of California is in a massive budget crisis, engulfing all
public services, from education to highways -- a result of a Depression-era
economic downturn.  Virtually ALL major transit agencies are impacted,
including Oakland's huge AC Transit all-bus system, which is also
grappling with a budget crisis, and planning fare increases and service
cuts.

>>Or if we become a laughingstock when it costs $1.36 to collect a $1 rail
fare, like in New Jersey?<<

This is a fabrication, apparently based on a "worst-case scenario"
speculated by a newspaper reporter in regard to the Southern New Jersey
light (diesel-electric) regional rail project, of what MIGHT happen under
certain rather unlikely conditions.  The rail service is not yet in operation.


>>Or when some of our most disadvantaged citizens, the transit-
dependent, form a Bus Riders Union and sue Metro to stop bus service
from being sacrificed for rail, as in Los Angeles?<<

This also is a misrepresentation.  The early-1990s lawsuit by the LA Bus
Riders Union (BRU, a coalition of some disgruntled riders, leftist activists,
and far-right rail transit opponents) focused on reducing bus overcrowding
and extending a temporary, voter-mandated fare reduction.  The basic
effect has been to limit the LA County MTA's ability to respond flexibly to
fluctuating bus ridership and capacity needs.  Some BRU members
attempted to demand that funds mandated for rail development by LA
voters be redirected into bus service; this effort was unsuccessful.


>>A recent study in the Journal of the American Planning Association
concluded that U.S. rail projects have gone 41 percent over budget on
average.<<

This study, by a rail opponent, is refuted by a number of other studies and
data.  See, for example:

Most Light Rail Projects Within Budget, on Time
http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_lrt009.htm

Federal GAO Report Shows: it's BRT (and Heavy Rail) With the Big Cost
Overruns, Not Light Rail!
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00018.htm


>>Across the country, rail has resulted in longer commutes as transit
agencies eliminate formerly continuous bus routes and force riders to
transfer to inconvenient rail lines. (Metro itself has estimates that up to 90
percent of proposed Main Street rail line riders were already riding mass
transit: the bus.)<<

if commutes by new rail systems are so much longer, why has ridership
on almost all new-start rail services skyrocketed?  Several new systems
almost have more new riders than they can handle.

Many rail riders are indeed former bus riders in the corridor, but their trip
becomes faster, not slower, with the new rail service.  While the
restructuring of bus routes has added a transfer for some riders in a small
number of cases, these new routes have often opened up new crosstown
corridors which have provided additional. connective services, including
suburb-to-suburb, for many more people in the transit service area.

>>These bus-to-rail transfers inflate poor rail ridership numbers while,
ironically, the added inconvenience causes overall system ridership
numbers to drop and, therefore, traffic to increase.<<

Even with more transfers (due to greater system accessibility,
connectivity, and usage from rail service), actual ridership (i.e., usage by
individual passengers) has increased.  This is substantiated by the
significant increase in passenger-mileage, which is not "inflated" by
transfer boardings.  Of the total 16% increase in'transit passenger-
mileage between 1990-2000, 84% can be credited to rail transit.

See:

Rail Transit Accounted for 84% of US Transit Passenger-Mile Growth,
1990-2000. Any Questions?
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt013.htm


>>We don't have to settle for a bad plan, just to have a plan. There are
alternatives. Let's start by implementing the following two solutions today:
Get more from high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Our current HOV lanes run
more than half empty during peak periods and have the potential to move
two to three times as many people per hour. This is a waste of much-
needed capacity.<<

HOV lanes can provide net benefits in some situations, but the
assessment of their overall value for mobility and urban livability is mixed.
There is some evidence that HOV lanes attract passengers from bus
transit -- a deleterious impact.  They may also encourage car commutes
which add to downstream congestion and parking demand -- additional
adverse inmpacts.  in any case, while incremental increases in HOV use
may be possible, there is a limit to their potential.  Furthermore, trips on
HOV lanes are no substitute for trips on rail, which immediately unburden
the area's roadway system and most stressed parking resources.


>>We should expand and upgrade our HOV network with clean-air buses,
interchanges, two-way service and, importantly, the ability for a single-
occupant vehicle to use the network by paying a variable toll calculated to
keep HOV lanes filled at full speed. Single-occupant cars (the vast
majority of drivers) can choose to pay to drive the HOV by paying a toll,
and the resulting funds can expand and improve the system. HOV bus
and vanpool services can also provide express 60-mph service to all of
Houston's job clusters, not just downtown, which the rail serves.<<

First, what "clean-air" buses?  Except for electric trolley buses, the buses
currently available for long-haul and commuter-type service ("express 60-
mph service") all use internal combustion engines and produce some level
of vehicular exhaust pollution.  Certainly, buses reduce pollution by
diverting some motorists to transit, but to imply that they are totally "clean-
air" is a misrepresentation.

High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes may offer both benefits and
disadvantages.  Properly used, with toll revenues applied to the support of
public transportation, the net benefit for public transport may offset the
serious drawback of encouraging and expediting the use of single-
occupancy vehicles, which worsen traffic congestion and introduce a
multitude of additional; adverse impacts in urban areas.

>>Better bus service. Put clean-air buses along Metro's proposed rail
routes at much lower cost. Scrapping just one light-rail line would pay for
all the buses needed to run at proposed rail frequencies on 25 to 50 bus
routes. No waiting until 2012 or even 2008 -- this service can be
implemented now without a decade of busted streets, frustrated drivers
and bankrupted businesses along the rail construction route.<<

The actual experience of LRT operations in the USA suggests that
investment in LRT may actually help to reduce ongoing unit operating
costs compared with bus service. Metro's MIS/Environmental Assessment
determined that LRT was a less costly option than alternative enhanced
bus service in the Main  St. corridor.  Also see:

How Light Rail Saves Operating Cost Dollars Compared With Buses
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt02.htm

Here are some additional problems with this "alternative" proposal.  The
number of buses required to "run at proposed rail frequencies on 25 to 50
bus routes" -- and provide equivalent capacity to rail -- would be
staggering.  You don't just procure such a vast fleet from your "local bus
dealer" overnight -- you must order them from the manufacturer (after a
bidding process) years in advance.  So much for a "service [that] can be
implemented now" without a wait.

Then there's the little problem of the FACILITIES needed to support all
that bus service -- waiting shelters, transfer terminals, park & rides, etc.
Those would require not just federal grants, but years of prepatory studies
required for such a project to qualify for federal grants.  And then more
years to build and deploy those facilities.

Then there's the issue of whether downtown Houston and other "job
clusters" have adequate street capacity to accommodate additonal
batallions of buses without conflicting with current traffic flows.  Will
special additional transit-only lanes be required?  if so, add in more years
of study for federal grants, and more years to create these special lanes.

Finally, there's a very basic question:  For the most part, Metro's proposed
rail lines would replace EXISTING bus routes with new rail service -- bus
routes which have helped build up corridor transit ridership, but have
largely exhausted the capability of buses to attract and satisfy ridership
within the constraints of relatively lower-cost bus technology.  So ... why
propose bus routes to replace rail routes which are replacing bus routes?


>>Let's not commit billions of dollars based on slick commercials or the
belief that everyone will trade their car keys for rail.<<

Yet another misrepresentation.  No serious rail transit supporter would
make the ridiculous argument that "everyone will trade their car keys for
rail."


>>Let's be bold enough to ask the tough questions, crunch the hard
numbers and not give up until we get the real answers.<<

Well, here are a couple of tough questions for starters.  Why do rail transit
opponents consistently feel compelled to brandish phony "facts", and to
resort to misrepresentation, distortion, deception, and diversionary "straw
man" arguments to try to advance their case?  To "crunch the hard
numbers" is a nice goal, but are flaky and dubious numbers from rail
critics, and the deceptive use of half-truths, truly a productive means to
arrive at "real answers"?

>>Houston is not only a world-class city, it's our home. We made that
choice. Now we have another choice, and we must get it right. We must
all work together to solve our transportation challenges with a realistic,
affordable plan that actually moves people and reduces congestion.<<

The evidence is overwhelming that rail transit, as part of a comprehensive
mobility plan with high-quality bus service and other elements, is, for
Houston and many other urban areas, the key to "a realistic, affordable
plan that actually moves people and reduces [mobility] congestion."



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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001724205_sound11m.
html

Seattle Times
Thursday, September 11, 2003

Sound Transit denied crucial money

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington bureau



Ernest Istook


WASHINGTON — A lawmaker holding the purse strings in Congress for
light rail yesterday torpedoed Sound Transit's bid for a half-billion dollars
in federal aid, leaving the agency uncertain about when it can break
ground on the 14-mile project.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., chairman of the House subcommittee on
transportation spending, rejected a proposal by the Bush administration to
award a $500 million grant to Sound Transit.

A letter sent yesterday from Istook to the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), which is part of the Department of Transportation, constitutes his
"formal disapproval" of the grant. He said the FTA has failed to answer
financial concerns about the project.

The decision doesn't kill the light-rail project outright, but it's likely to force
the agency to shelve plans to begin construction early this fall.

Agency officials say they can't build light rail without the promise of federal
dollars, and they had been counting on the $500 million grant to move
forward on a $2.44 billion line from downtown Seattle to Tukwila.

in June, the agency opened 12 construction bids, which expire in October.
"If Istook and the FTA don't work out their differences by then, the agency
will be forced to renegotiate the contracts, perhaps costing Sound Transit
millions more as contractors account for increased wages and materials
costs.

The FTA notified Congress in July that it intended to make the deal with
Sound Transit unless lawmakers objected.

in his letter yesterday, Istook blamed the FTA for not adequately
answering his questions about the project, including the agency's
financing and commitment to not dip into tax revenues collected on the
Eastside.

The FTA "is not serious about the potential major problems with the cost
and finances of this project ... and the pending (grant) should not be
signed at this time," Istook wrote.

Istook could change his mind and approve the grant. But any delay is not
good news for Sound Transit, which has been hampered for years by
questions about cost estimates and management problems.




The proposed 21-mile project from the University District to Seattle-
Tacoma international Airport — first approved by voters in 1996 — was
reduced to a 14-mile initial segment from downtown to Tukwila, with the
goal of future extensions still in mind.

it crossed a significant hurdle when the FTA, with the support of the Bush
administration, approved the recommendation for the grant this summer.

The FTA could sign the $500 million deal without Istook's approval. But
such a move would have dire consequences, he warned. "If ... officials
choose to sign this agreement without satisfying my concerns and
questions, I can assure you that it would have negative implications on my
ability to trust and work with FTA in the future."

Congress doles out billions of transportation dollars annually. Grant
agreements between local transit authorities and the FTA aren't legally
binding, but they often enable construction to begin with the expectation
that federal money will be available in subsequent years.

Istook could seek to block money for Sound Transit every year if he
remained an opponent of the project.

FTA officials did not respond to phone calls last night. A spokeswoman for
Istook said the letter "speaks for itself."

The latest activity on Capitol Hill was seen as a setback for Sound Transit,
but not one the agency could do much about.

"it's a heavyweight bout (between Istook and the FTA). We're just trying to
keep our heads down," said Ric ilgenfritz, communications director for
Sound Transit.

Agency officials would not discuss what the expiration of contracts next
month may mean for the light-rail project.

"We're not ready to speculate on that," ilgenfritz said.

Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Bellevue, a light-rail skeptic who worries that
Eastside transit money could be diverted to cover cost overruns on the
project, said the exchange between Istook and the FTA was "a serious
protocol problem, and that can be the most important problem of all when
you are dealing with congressional committees."

Dunn's statement reflects a fundamental question of who has authority
over government spending: the executive branch or the legislative branch.

She is the only vocal critic of the project in the Washington delegation,
and talked with Istook this summer about her concerns.

"Ernest is one tough character," she added. "He's not known for backing
down."

A Sound Transit supporter, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, said: "We're
disappointed, but we're going to work to try and resolve the issues the
chairman is concerned about."

Also uncertain is Sound Transit's appropriation from Congress for next
year. The House spending bill gives Sound Transit $15 million. The
Senate bill has $75 million. The difference will be negotiated among
lawmakers.

Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or afryer@seattletimes.com



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

Seattle Times
Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Guest columnist

Monorail-on-the-cheap wasn't the bargain

By Matt Rosenberg
Special to The Times


Faced with a troubling gap in expected funding, the Seattle Monorail
Project must try harder to hold the razor-thin majority of public trust it
might — underline that word — have enjoyed earlier.

As I've written before, I believe the planned Ballard-to-West Seattle Green
Line has great potential for hassle-free commuting, neighborhood
economic development, and serving as a model for a broader city and
regional monorail transit system.

But now my pitcher of green Kool-Aid is down to half full.

if current staff projections hold, the monorail's take (in annual motor
vehicle re-licensing taxes) could be anywhere from 11 to 33 percent less
than what was sold to voters last fall. Initial revenue collection in June and
July made the problem apparent.

The upshot is that the system will be on a forced diet from the start, quite
possibly slighting important concerns about how stations and stanchions
are built across the cityscape, and through Seattle communities. The
tightened revenue flow means we risk getting a worse monorail for our
money, while bondholders earn a higher interest rate due to our dicey
finances.

Possible alternatives include stretching the very elastic 25-year timeframe
of the tax on local motorists (no thanks!), or finding additional construction
funds from new taxes on in-city lodgings, car rentals, or tour outings to
make up the lost portion. Don't blanch: Dinging tourists with taxes for
cultural and transit projects usually passes the smell test. Another option,
though unlikely, is a new public vote — with better financial data and a
mandated 25-year sunset on the special local car tax.

Currently, officials must better control costs and image. Agency boasts of
being millions under budget now don't impress, given the serious funding
challenges evident for completion.

in other government realms and the private sector, plunges in expected
revenues mean staff cuts, at the very least. Yet, no layoffs are being
discussed for the monorail project.

Just as bad, too many monorail salaries are excessive. The agency's first
task is building what's essentially a demonstration project, not a full-blown
metropolitan transit system. And the project has sprung a big, bad leak
already.

So it's hard to stomach that Executive Director Joel Horn gets $172,000.
Or that each earning $150,000 are senior director Anne Levinson,
construction director Tom Horkan, legal and environmental director Ross
McFarlane, finance director Daniel Malarkey, and right-of-way director Joe
McWilliams.

A plush $125,000 each goes to design and engineering manager Jim
Gebhard, second-phase planning director Denna Cline, and external
communications director Ven Knox. And salaries are $110,000 each for
government-affairs manager Kevin Raymond, special-projects manager
Debby Frausto, and permitting and special-projects manager Rachel Ben-
Shmuel.

The board should consider staff consolidation, and cap salaries at
$100,000. Let top staffers drink varietal blends, not aged cabernets. If the
Green Line is built on time, in full, and without shortcuts or cost overruns,
then reward employees further.

I also question a recent citywide monorail mailing officials say cost about
$100,000. The full-color, 12-inch-by-22-inch foldout includes too-cute
poster art showing the Green Line linking stylized Belltown latte-sippers,
Ballard fishermen, Space Needle tourists and Sodo stadium-goers with
West Seattle.

Most of the text is rehashed pro-monorail campaign boilerplate, plus this
attempt at damage control: "While it may be that our initial voter-approved
car tax collections will continue to be lower than projected, we're also
using an innovative contracting method that will help lower costs and
establish a fixed price for designing, building, operating and maintaining
the new monorail."

The flyer adds, "We are committed to building a world-class 14-mile
Green Line with the revenues available." But on the cheap doesn't get you
world-class, as Seattle knows all too well. It gets you about 30 or 40
years, then demolition — as happened to the Kingdome, the old Seattle
Municipal Building and the old downtown library.

True, all the lofty, costly visions of Seattle's urban-design elite for the
monorail wouldn't be realized, no matter what. That's fine: People voted
for urban mobility, not an art installation.

But reasonable and preferred route options, basic design considerations,
already-scant parking capacity and security provisions may be given even
shorter shrift, now that a hefty chunk of promised monorail funds won't
materialize.

The flyer does mention an upcoming public hearing on the monorail draft
environmental impact statement. The information could have fit onto a
postcard one-eighth the size. Next time, economize and put the balance in
the construction kitty.

And beware of double-edged headlines like those adorning the
unfortunate mailer: "The excitement is building;" and "Green means GO."
Right now, nagging doubts are building; and green means show us the
money for a system built right.


Matt Rosenberg is a Seattle writer and regular contributor to The Times'
editorial pages. E-mail him at oudist@nwlink.com



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

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Monday, September 1, 2003

Letters to the Editor

MONORAIL

City's limited funds should be invested in existing transit

The latest revelations about funding shortfalls for the monorail show that
this is a project headed for disaster.

Let's take a quick look at a few of the issues faced by this doomed project.
Savvy downtown business interests recognize the monorail as a
mismanaged project and have now come public with their skepticism
about the ability to complete it as promised.

Neighborhood residents and businesses that will be forced to move to
make way for the stations are now realizing that the project will have very
real and very adverse impacts. Their concerns will be amplified as the
routing plans for the monorail become less nebulous.

Funding from the motor vehicle excise tax is already dramatically below
projected levels -- and this is before the tax jumps to 1.4 percent next
year. This trend will continue.

And just as the tax revenue projections have been shown to be wildly
inflated, so too are the ridership projections. While every car owner in
Seattle will pay for the monorail, few will benefit from it and fewer still will
use it.

in a nutshell, the monorail is a boondoggle that should be killed before it
goes any further. Let's invest our limited funds in our existing transit
system, not in an inflexible, overpriced train heading for disaster.

Stephen Growdon
Seattle








CONTENTS

* Spokane: Streetcars + 'BRT' plan eyed
   Journal Of Business (Spokane) September 05, 2003

* Houston: Rail ridership projections debated
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 6, 2003

* Transit ridership forecasts not 100% accurate
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 6, 2003, 1:20AM

* Norfolk: ODU maglev project needs additional millions
   The Washington Times September 07, 2003

* No. Ca:  Historic Skunk train at end of line?
   San Francisco Chronicle Sunday, August 31, 2003

* Okinawa:  Girl falls from curved monorail platform
   Japan Update 2003/09/05


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

Journal Of Business (Spokane)
Page One
September 05, 2003

Fixed-rail streetcars mulled

Feasibility study to explore funding sources, including local, state, federal
coffers

By  Megan Cooley

Streetcars such as the ones used now in Portland one day could transport
passengers in Spokane.



Three groups have teamed up to study the feasibility of bringing fixed-rail
streetcars back to downtown Spokane.


The study's supporters—the Downtown Spokane Partnership, the
Spokane Regional Transportation Council, and the Spokane Transit
Authority—say the proposal is preliminary. As it's envisioned, though,
modern-looking streetcars one day could circulate passengers through
downtown and into neighboring districts, says Michael Edwards, president
of the Downtown Spokane Partnership.


Such a system could spur business development along the rail lines,
which has been the result in Portland, Ore., where a streetcar system was
built three years ago, he says.


"The fixed-rail configuration provides a measure of permanence allowing
investors to make more significant investment decisions" than they could
otherwise, Edwards said in a statement issued by the three organizations
last week.


The study will consider a streetcar system that would circulate people
throughout downtown and to outlying destinations such as the Spokane
Veterans Memorial Arena, Riverpoint Higher Education Park, South Hill
medical district, and Browne's Addition.


Glenn Miles, SRTC transportation manager, says it usually costs about
$12 million a mile to build a fixed-rail streetcar system. If Spokane decided
to pursue such a project, it could seek funds from the Federal Transit
Administration, which is considering developing a program that would
support development of streetcar systems in U.S. cities.


The city of Portland funded its streetcar system through a variety of
sources, including through tax-increment financing, local improvement
districts, and local-option taxes, but Miles says the Spokane groups won't
know whether such an approach would be used here until the study is
completed. Likewise, the study will explore the possibility of tapping into
city, state, and STA funds.


"The whole question is still wide open," Miles says.


Funds also could come from the private sector or from a combination of
both private and public sources, Edwards said in a follow-up interview.


The Federal Transit Administration's involvement would depend on
funding from the reauthorization of a federal transportation bill. Congress
is slated to take up the bill, on which several projects here are hinging,
during its fall session, but Miles says he doesn't expect the package to be
finalized until next spring.


Charles Hales, the Portland-based vice president of transit planning for
the architectural and engineering firm HDR Inc., spoke in Spokane last
week at a meeting about the proposed project. He told an audience of
about 100 people here that more than $1 billion has been invested in
businesses along Portland's streetcar route, Edwards says.


Miles says the meeting was a positive kickoff of the feasibility study. His
organization is the lead agency on the study, although the downtown
partnership first proposed the idea.


"I think there's a lot of interest in how something like a streetcar would fit
into Spokane," he says.


Edwards says the physical fit, at least, wouldn't be a problem here.


"The streetcar, because of its size, fits into the urban fabric," he says.
"Cars and fixed rail would operate in the same space. The streetcar
doesn't dominate a street; it removes very little parking; and the customer
access is very, very easy."


The streetcars the groups are proposing for consideration have entry
doors that are low to the ground, so passengers can walk on without
having to take much of a step up. While some cities operate nostalgic-
looking streetcars, the groups here are proposing that Spokane consider
installing modern-looking streetcars, Edwards says.


"Hales called the nostalgic streetcars 'transpertainment,'" Edwards says.
"In other words, it's almost like a (carnival) ride. It doesn't attract a
business rider going through life function."


Portland's fixed-rail line uses modern-looking streetcars on the weekdays
to cater to commuters and nostalgic-looking ones on weekends to attract
tourists, Edwards says.


The Portland streetcars run between the neighborhoods of Northwest
Portland to an area about 15 blocks away called the Pearl District. Both
areas are close to downtown Portland and have evolved into bustling
commercial and residential centers in recent years, especially for young
professionals.


Edwards says about 6,000 people ride the Portland streetcars a day,
which is up 30 percent to 40 percent from the project's first year of
operation.


Studying the feasibility of building a fixed-rail streetcar system here will
take six months to a year, he says, and comments are encouraged from
downtown business owners and the community. Further project details,
such as how many cars would operate in the system and when the project
would be built, will be determined in the study, Edwards says. Several
public meetings will be held, and a steering committee is forming to head
up the effort, he says.


if the study shows that such a project is viable here, the groups would
seek conceptual-design funds as their next step, Miles says.



One piece of puzzle

The study's supporters say the proposed streetcar project wouldn't
displace another project proposed here: building a light-rail line that would
connect downtown to Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake. It also has been
suggested that instead of light rail, those centers be connected with an
express bus service called bus rapid transit.


Rather than working against the light-rail or express-bus effort, the
streetcar project would complement whatever type of system is
developed, says Mary Ann Ulik, the Downtown Spokane Partnership's
director of parking and operations.


"it's intended as part of a larger transportation system," she says. "Buses,
streetcars, and light rail would work together as a whole system. One
doesn't replace another."


Ulik says she envisions passengers getting on the streetcars, traveling
several blocks, hopping off to do some shopping, and jumping on again to
move to another part of town, to their places of work, to restaurants, or to
their homes.


Edwards adds, "One thing we learned (from Hales) was that a streetcar,
more than light rail and certainly more than buses, is two-thirds about
economic development and is one-third about transportation."


Meanwhile, the idea of using light rail or bus rapid transit to link downtown
to the Valley is inching ahead, Miles says. Meetings—aimed at
determining what the minimum length and location of the downtown-to-
Valley line would be if the entire envisioned project could not be
completed—were expected to be held this week, he says. That project
also depends on the federal transportation package, though.


Spokane had a fixed-rail streetcar system downtown for about the first
three decades of the 20th century, says Mike Brewer, a former Spokane
city councilman whose father worked for the Spokane Transit Authority
and its predecessor organizations. The tracks were removed in the mid-
1930s when the city began to use buses for mass transit, he says. Before
that, though, the tracks crossed the river on the Monroe Street Bridge and
again on their own thin trestle parallel to the Post Street Bridge.




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 6, 2003


Rail debate rides on projections

By LUCAS WALL

Both sides of the rail debate agree the key issue for voters is how many
people would use the expanded bus and rail service.

But the fight over how to calculate that number -- and how many riders it
would take for Metro's multibillion transit plan to be considered a success -
- is likely to continue right up until the Nov. 4 referendum.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority contends its expansion plan would lead
to a 233 percent increase in ridership by 2025, removing thousands of
cars each day from highways and spawning dense, pedestrian-friendly
development.

Critics counter that those projections are overly optimistic. They argue that
the plan before voters -- the centerpiece of which is a $640 million bond
issue for 22 new miles of light rail -- would do nothing to improve regional
mobility or change development patterns.

Voters have less than two months to weigh the arguments.

Projecting future ridership over a 22-year period, as Metro is attempting to
do, is a complicated task because no one really knows how the region will
grow during that time.

"Ridership is the most important component of any solution that you come
up with," said David Hutzelman, director of the Business Committee
Against Rail, which recently released a 67-page report calling on Metro to
spend more on buses and roads, but not rail. "My fundamental argument
is, we won't see any significant increases in mass-transit use."

The transit authority crunches data through a complex computer program
based on surveys of current travel trends, existing regional demographics,
and forecasts for regional job and employment growth. There are so many
ways to measure ridership and compare public transit with private
automobiles that both sides are issuing stacks of statistics to back up their
claims.

Metro's urgency in obtaining voter approval for its "Metro Solutions" plan
this fall -- two months before its first light rail line begins operating along
the 7 1/2-mile Main Street corridor -- is due in part to a stunning projection
by the Houston-Galveston Area Council that Harris County will add 2
million residents by 2025. That would be a 59 percent increase over
today's 3.4 million. Many of those new residents are expected to be
immigrants and other low-income workers who will rely heavily on public
transportation.

The growth is expected to be so mammoth that Metro's plan -- $3.8 billion
in bus and rail capital projects, plus $774 million in street construction --
might not even keep up with increased traffic congestion, let alone ease it.

"The region is growing, and 20 years from now you're going to have a lot
more people and a lot more congestion," said Metro planning consultant
Steve Beard. "It will be less with this transit plan than there would be
without it. But is transit going to reduce congestion? That's going to be
real difficult to see because transit has to not only keep up with growth but
exceed the growth in order to have an impact."

Metro's acknowledgment that its expansion proposal might not reduce
current congestion has alarmed those on both sides of the issue.
Passionate rail advocates, including mayoral candidate Sylvester Turner,
are calling on the agency to scrap this plan and put forth a more
aggressive rail construction initiative. Opponents say Metro would be
better off spending more money building roads.

"They are trying to jam this down our throats in November," U.S. Rep.
John Culberson, R-Houston, recently told the Houston Chronicle's
editorial board in a lengthy and harsh rebuke of the Metro proposal. "They
are forcing this election in order to maximize the number of minority voters
that will vote for it in the inner city. ... If this is being driven by politics
rather than actually helping solve congestion or reducing travel time, it's
fundamentally wrong."

Because the Houston mayoral and City Council elections also take place
Nov. 4, turnout is expected to be higher in the city than the suburban
Metro service areas. Metro covers the western two-thirds of Harris County
and slivers of Fort Bend, Waller and Montgomery counties.

Culberson is the region's only representative on the House transportation
appropriations subcommittee, which will need to funnel matching federal
dollars to Houston for Metro's plan to be financially viable. Metro hopes
U.S. taxpayers will pay for half of all new bus and rail capital projects, a
hefty $1.9 billion over the next 22 years.

"I'm not sure the ridership numbers they have given us are accurate,"
Culberson said. "All decisions on how we spend our transportation dollars
really need to be based on: Will it reduce congestion? Will it reduce travel
time? You should design the system to ensure you get the most riders."

Metro contends it has done exactly that, picking seven rail lines out of the
numerous corridors studied because computer models used to generate
ridership forecasts predicted those routes would carry the most
passengers and save them the most time.

"Staging of construction was done by ridership priority," Beard said.
"These are the highest ridership lines."


The transit authority has been through this before. Metro lost its first rail
referendum in 1983 in part because voters scoffed at the likelihood of
attracting the high numbers of riders the authority had projected at the
time.

in the current debate, Culberson has been handing out his own office's
ridership data and blasting Metro for projecting ridership per track mile
twice as high as that of Los Angeles, which has run light rail since 1990,
and three times the national average. He accused the authority of "Enron
accounting" that could be viewed as "gross negligence or deliberate
indifference."

But Culberson's calculations are based on Metro's 40 miles of planned rail
line expansion, instead of the 94 miles of track envisioned to be in service
by 2025. They also compare Metro's projected 2025 ridership with actual
ridership in other cities today, numbers that are not adjusted upward for
future population growth and system expansion.

"it's not a fair comparison at all to take our 2025 numbers and say they
are higher than some other cities' numbers today," Beard said. "That was
the fundamental problem he had in the comparison."

Metro officials project that the proposed rail system would have 162,600
daily boardings by 2025. That assumes completion of the 22 miles of light
rail that would be financed by the November bond referendum plus future
funding for an additional 18 miles of new rail. Those two phases added to
the Main Street line nearing completion would give Houston a 47-mile rail
network by 2019 -- 94 miles of track, since each line has rails in both
directions.

The American Public Transportation Association uses track miles to
calculate ridership and other statistics for all of its member agencies.

Although the overall plan envisions another 25 miles of light rail and an
eight-mile commuter rail spur to Missouri City, funding for those projects
has not been identified, and they are not included in the ridership
estimates.

The 162,600 daily boardings would represent a maximum of 81,300 daily
passengers because riders generally make roundtrips each day -- to work
and then back home, for example. There would likely be fewer actual
passengers because some rail riders would transfer between lines and
end up being counted twice. If one-fourth of riders made connections, the
actual passenger count would be around 61,000 per day.

if the region has the projected 5.4 million residents by 2025, that means
Metro's proposed rail system would carry only 1.1 percent of them on a
daily basis.

"I don't think light rail has reduced congestion anywhere," said Randal
O'Toole, director of the Oregon-based American Dream Coalition, a group
that supports more investment in roads. "Of course, at least half the
passengers on light rail were previously bus riders."

That contention is a key point for rail opponents. Metro itself has
estimated up to 90 percent of riders on the Main Street light rail line will
have previously been on the bus.

Even if half of those on the trains are new riders, that would mean just
30,500 people expected to give up commuting via car and riding the trains
in Houston by 2025.


Hutzelman and others argue that the plan is more about promoting urban
development than improving mobility. They cite statistics showing that 59
percent fewer people use mass transit today than at its peak in 1946
because Americans can afford more automobiles and prefer to drive
around.

Train critics point out that dividing the $2.8 billion in proposed Metro rail
construction by the 30,500 potential new riders in Houston equals
$91,803.

"You could invest that instead and lease a new Lexus for every new rider,"
said Hutzelman, who contends mass transit cannot successfully compete
with the convenience and comfort of a car. "It would be cheaper."

Culberson calls the proposed rail system "a black hole for tax dollars that
hurts us all."

Proponents argue the cost per new rail rider is a simplistic way to view the
transit-expansion proposal. Many, including Mayor Lee Brown, say the
investment will pay off in prestige. They contend rail will enhance the city's
image and attract more visitors and businesses.

Beard constantly has to remind people that the plan also includes $979
million in new bus capital expenditures that by 2025 would double the
commuter-bus system, add two-way HOV lanes on most freeways, and
result in a total bus-route increase of 50 percent. Metro projects bus
ridership increasing from today's 304,822 average boardings per day --
seventh-highest in the country -- to 547,500 per day in 2025. That would
be an 80 percent increase in bus use.

Combined with rail, mass-transit ridership is projected to reach 710,100 by
2025, an increase of 233 percent over today. If the existing system were
to stay in place, ridership is projected to grow to 516,000 daily boardings.
So the extra buses and rail system would draw an estimated 194,100
additional boardings, 38 percent more than anticipated natural growth.

"If they weren't using transit, that would make a tremendous impact on the
number of people on the roads," Beard said. "Transit is going to take its
share, but all the other regional partners have to do everything they can if
we're going to address this congestion problem."

He points out that the Metro Solutions ballot referendum also includes
$750 million in road money that would be distributed to Houston, Harris
County and the other 14 member cities. Those payments would extend
current agreements from 2009 to 2014.

"The real question that people really have to focus on is: What happens if
we don't do this?" said Kimberly Slaughter, who has worked with Beard on
the expansion project. "That's when we have a real problem."


RESOURCES
How Metro calculates future transit ridership:
· Obtains estimates of regional population and job growth from the
Houston-Galveston Area Council.

· Figures out how many trips those people would generate and where they
would be going, based on current ridership data, regional demographics
and surveys of area residents' travel habits.

· Enters that data, plus existing and planned transit services and road
network, into a computer model.

· Uses computer modeling to predict future growth patterns and calculate
how many trips in each corridor are expected by car, bus, rail and other
modes.

· Compares travel time for different modes on each corridor.

· Adjusts rail ridership projections based on other cities' experiences
because Houston currently has no rail operating. Also counts on some
new, dense development near rail stations to attract riders.

Source: Metropolitan Transit Authority

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2085296




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 6, 2003, 1:20AM

Transit rider projections often differ from reality

By LUCAS WALL

Projecting transit ridership is an inexact science, but industry officials say
they are getting much better at it.

"There have, in the past, been a lot of times when the ridership estimates
were much higher than actual experience," acknowledged Bill Millnar, a
former Pittsburgh transit chief who is now president of the American
Public Transportation Association, the group that represents the interests
of mass-transit agencies. "We've learned from our experiences, learned
from what the critics had to say. If anything, today we tend to err on the
conservative side."

Recent examples show mixed results:

· St. Louis' MetroLink system opened in 1993. By the end of the year, it
had 44,000 daily boardings -- almost four times what it had predicted. But
daily ridership has dropped to 39,000 this year.

· Salt Lake City's light rail system was expected to see 14,400 daily
boardings when it opened in 1999, Millnar said, but it actually experienced
17,000. Today, after some expansion, the Utah Transit Authority's lines
carry 32,000 boardings on a typical day.

· in Dallas, projections bounced from too low to too high as the system
quickly grew. Dallas' first light rail segment opened in 1996 and took on
18,900 daily boardings, 18 percent above the initial projection. The Dallas
Area Rapid Transit Authority now has 44 route miles on two lines.
Ridership has fallen 13 percent short of expectations lately, with 57,900
daily boardings in July compared with the 66,400 that were projected.

Doug Allen, DART's executive vice president for program development,
attributed the recent drop-off to the economic downturn and loss of jobs.

· San Jose, Calif., also has been pummeled by the collapse of the high-
tech industry. Its light rail system has only 19,000 daily boardings lately,
which represents approximately 7,000 people per day, well below
projections.

· New Jersey Transit, which Metro President and Chief Executive Officer
Shirley DeLibero headed before coming to Houston, reduced ridership
projections by 37 percent earlier this year on a beleaguered light rail line
that will link Camden and Trenton starting this fall.

Opponents don't see much when looking at the ridership numbers of the
22 U.S. cities that have light rail operating. Daily boardings on all 22
systems totaled 969,000 in the first quarter of this year, according to
statistics compiled by the American Public Transportation Association.
That equates to roughly 363,000 Americans who ride light rail trains each
day.

Planners in Houston say they are confident in their ridership projections,
but they admit unforeseen swings in the economy could affect them.
Metro has lost 9 percent of its bus ridership -- 29,400 daily boardings -- in
the last two years due to the current economic slump.


This article is:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2084709





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

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20030906-110350-8424r.htm

The Washington Times
September 07, 2003

2 million to move ODU maglev project

    NORFOLK (AP) — Old Dominion University plans to spend $2 million to
get the nation's first magnetic-levitation train back on track.
    The federal money is intended to jump-start the stalled project, but it's
not enough to get the train and stations ready for public use. That
preparation would require about $5 million more, ODU officials said, an
amount that they're lobbying Congress to provide.
    The $2 million, however, should be enough to fix the problems with the
train and get it running smoothly at 40 mph as a demonstration project,
said Robert L. Fenning, ODU's vice president for administration and
finance.
    The magnetic-levitation project — maglev for short — came to a halt
last fall when development problems ate up the train's $14 million budget.
    For nearly a year, the blue-and-white vehicle has stood idle on an
elevated track next to the college's tennis courts. Maglev uses
electromagnets to make the vehicle float about a half-inch above an
elevated track.
    To carry students, the project needs about $5 million more to complete
the three stations along the 3,200-foot guideway, make modifications to
the track and vehicle, and conduct lengthy testing to certify its safety for
public use.
    "We're moving as briskly toward our ultimate goal as we can," said
Robert L. Ash, ODU's interim vice president for research. "We can't ignore
our commitment to our students and faculty."
    ODU, which previously served only as host for the American Maglev
project, now has involved its engineering faculty in finding solutions and
will open a Maglev Technology Development Center on campus to
advance the technology.
    "it's all heading in the right direction. It's just going a little more
deliberately than we had hoped," Mr. Ash said.
    American Maglev Technology Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp. and ODU,
partners in the project, have developed new computer controls and
sensors that they say should offer a smoother ride than the bumpy test
runs.
    "We need to get it to a place where it's commercially viable," Mr. Ash
said. "We need to get the system to operate with the speed and ride
quality that would make this an attractive transportation option."
    ODU's train is not the only maglev project to hit snags. The opening of
a $1 billion German-built high-speed, 19-mile maglev system in Shanghai
has been delayed until next year because of technical issues. The
problems prompted China to cancel a planned 800-mile maglev train
between Shanghai and Beijing, the Times of London reported.
    Germany and Japan have pumped billions of dollars into maglev testing
but have yet to open a commercial system.
    Still, with its projected $20 million-per-mile price tag, Tony Morris,
American Maglev's president and chief executive officer, envisions maglev
as an affordable answer to congestion. The company is being considered
for other rail projects around the world, including one in Karachi, Pakistan.
    With the infusion of the federal money, the ODU-American Maglev
project's budget is up to $16 million — still a modest amount, experts said.
    "What's been done is pretty commendable for the amount of funds
available to do it with," said Thomas Alberts, an ODU aerospace
engineering professor working on maglev. "There was never enough
money to bring it to the point of a transportation system that could bring
students around campus."
    The maglev had been budgeted three years ago at $16 million, which
included a $2 million federal appropriation that didn't materialize. Without
the federal share, project leaders adjusted their sights and started work
with $3.5 million from Lockheed Martin, $3.5 million from Dominion
Virginia Power and a $7 million state loan.
    When things went wrong in the train's development, there was no
cushion in the budget.
    "it's taken a lot longer, but it doesn't mean what we're doing is any less
important," Mr. Morris said.




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

[BATN]

San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, August 31, 2003

End of line for Skunk Train


Historic railroad that brings big tourist dollars to North Coast
runs into serious money woes


By Peter Fimrite
Chronicle Staff Writer


A long, mournful whistle echoed over the marsh along Pudding Creek
as the celebrated Skunk Train entered the first tunnel on its long,
winding route out of Fort Bragg and through the redwoods.


"I've been workin' on the railroad, all my live-long days," sang
Greg Schindel, the Train Singer, his banjo jangling and his 100 or
so passengers joining in.


it was an oddly poignant moment for Schindel, who has been working
on the railroad for 15 years. Come Tuesday, the historic 118-year-
old train line may be gone forever.


The California Western Railroad, saddled with $2.6 million in debt,
exacerbated by inflated insurance costs, went bankrupt this year
after a long, slow decline.


Scenic railroads across the country are facing similar problems as
tourism declines in the face of a faltering economy. Meanwhile,
insurance companies have in the past year tripled their rates for
excursion trains.


Thanks to loans from the city of Fort Bragg and a bank, the Skunk
Train kept running through the busy summer. But Mike Meyer, a Santa
Rosa attorney named the railroad's Chapter 11 trustee, said the
railroad cannot afford to run past Labor Day, when tourism typically
slows.


Unless someone with deep pockets is found to buy the railroad, Meyer
said, its whistle may never blow again. At stake is not only
Schindel's and other workers' jobs, but an international icon and a
primary source of tourist dollars for the region.


"If I had the money, I'd buy it," Schindel said. "it's too nice an
entity to lose. I've met people from all over the world on this
train, and many of them have taught me train songs. Somebody has got
to have the money to save it."


The soaring cost of insurance forced the Ohio Central Railroad, in
Sugar Creek, to shut down its tourist trains through Amish country
in May. That same month, the Corydon Scenic Railroad, in indiana,
stopped its tourist passenger operation for the same reason. In
June, Soo Line 2719, a scenic steam train in Chippewa Falls, Wisc.,
also shut down because of escalating insurance costs.


Dan Ranger, the executive director of the New Mexico-based Tourist
Railroad Association, said the problem was caused by insurance
companies that invested heavily in the stock market and, like
everyone else, lost their shirts when the market collapsed.


Consumers are now being forced to pick up the slack, he said. In
fact, insurance rates have climbed dramatically in many areas,
including for monuments like the Golden Gate Bridge, which adjusters
fear could be a target for terrorism.


But vintage railroads are marked because they usually carry
passengers in outdated coaches pulled by archaic locomotives riding
old tracks, Ranger said.


"I know of one operator that experienced a 300 percent increase in
his insurance premium and his company has had no claims for the past
15 years," Ranger said. "This is all impacting the industry. The Cal
Western, while it is well known and has been around for a long time,
also got nailed."


The beloved Cal Western, better known as the Skunk, was already
fighting against the tide when its policy was dropped by its
insurance company in August.


The line was built in 1885 to haul lumber along the winding Noyo
River canyon. When the connection to Willits was completed in 1911,
the railroad wound 40 miles through vast stands of redwood that were
used to build the cities of the West.


The line, which at one point had 115 bridges and trestles, also
connected to the Northwestern Pacific Railroad in Willits, allowing
lumber, freight and passengers from Fort Bragg to be carried all the
way to Sausalito.


The name "Skunk Train" was apparently first used when the California
Western purchased single-car rail buses. Railroad workers said the
gas fumes smelled like a skunk. The name stuck.


By 1961, the Skunk Train, which now uses diesel locomotives, carried
44,359 people. It grew even more popular when a 1924 Mikado-type
steam engine was brought back into service in 1966.


The old steam engine was refurbished this year and is being used on
weekends after being out of service for two years.


The countryside that the train chugs through is lush with moss and
ferns. Waterfalls dot the river. Overgrown mining camps pepper the
route, with rotting old barns, shacks and rusted equipment.


Phil Ross, who has worked as an engineer, conductor and brakeman for
the past seven years, said he once had to stop for a mountain lion.
He said he has seen bears and other wildlife in the woods, and foxes
regularly run on the tracks in front of the trains.


"it's a great job. Where else could you come out here every day?"
Ross said, pointing out a shimmering pool below the trestle
surrounded by granite cliffs and giant trees. "I sometimes wish i
could stop the train and go fishing, but I can't."


By 1997, the railroad was as popular as ever, with ridership
reaching 56, 036. But things have gone downhill ever since. In 2002,
only 41,110 rode the train. The consortium of local investors that
owned the railroad had lost money five years in a row and their debt
was listed at $2,614,983.74 when they filed for Chapter 11
protection Dec. 3, 2002.


The Skunk Train costs $35 for an adult round-trip ticket during the
week and $40 on weekends. It still picks up and carries mail to
cabin dwellers in the forest, making it the last train in the United
States that still has a mail run.


Meyer, the Chapter 11 trustee, said three companies have expressed
interest, but the system would need $500,000 in upgrades.


Most residents of this seaside town, where Paul Bunyan remains a
celebrated figure, cannot even fathom not having their beloved Skunk
.



E-mail Peter Fimrite at pfimrite@sfchronicle.com



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

http://www.japanupdate.com/previous/03/09/05/story3.shtml


Japan Update
2003/09/05

Girl unharmed after fall from monorail platform

A four-year-old girl was unharmed Sunday after she fell about three
meters from the Okinawa monorail Miebashi Station onto the concrete
plate under the rails. Naha Police say the girl was visiting Naha with her
six-member family from Miyako island. One of the highlights of their trip
was supposed to be a ride on Okinawa's new monorail. When the girl tried
to step into the monorail car, she slipped through the gap between the car
and the station platform.

She landed on the concrete plate under the railroad both feet first, and
then rolled smoothly back to a sitting position. Miraculously, the girl did not
suffer even a bruise. The staff at the station cut the power off and rescued
the girl.

A couple of weeks ago a five-year-old child stepped into a similar gap on
another station, but her parents managed to grab her before she fell
through completely. According to a monorail spokesman, there are five
stations where the gap between the car and platform is exceptionally wide
because the rail curves at those stations. The company engineers are
trying to come up with a rubber hem design to close the gap.







CONTENTS

* BULLETIN: US House votes to restore transportation enhancements
   Martha Roskowski - America Bikes - September 4, 2003

* Salt Lake: 'Light Rail Line Exceeds Expectations'
   Associated Press Aug. 18, 2003

* Tucson: Light rail plan, tax will go to voters
   ARIZONA DAILY STAR - Tucson 08/05/2003

* LA: Deal will create 'transit village' at Red Line station
   Los Angeles Times September 3, 2003

* Houston: Major business group backs transit plan
   Houston Chronicle Sept. 4, 2003

* Suburban sprawl promotes waistline sprawl
   New York Times September 4, 2003

* Kuala Lumpur: 10,000 crowd monorail on 1st day
   New Straits Times » National  2003/09/02

* Kuala Lumpur: Monorail a big hit with public
   The Star Online Tuesday September 2, 2003


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

[PTP BULLETIN: US House votes to restore transportation enhancements
funding in transportation bill...]

> Martha Roskowski
> America Bikes
> September 4, 2003
>
> Hi folks
>
> Yahoo! Moments ago, the House of Representatives voted to restore
funding
> for the Transportation Enhancements program in the 2004
Transportation
> Appropriations bill with over a hundred Republicans voting yes! The
> bi-partisan effort was led by Representatives Petri (R-WI) and Olver
> (D-MA).
>
> Huge thanks to everyone who wrote letters, made calls and let
Congress
> know that the Enhancements program was important. Your voice was
heard!
>
> This victory not only restores $600 million in dedicated funding for 2004,
> it puts the bicycle and pedestrian community on strong footing for the
> bigger battle over the reauthorization of TEA-21, the 6 year
> transportation funding bill.
>
> More later. Nice work, y'all!
>
> I am THRILLED!
>
> -m
> Martha Roskowski
> America Bikes
> Campaign Manager
> www.americabikes.org
> martha@americabikes.org


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

Associated Press
Aug. 18, 2003

Light Rail Line Exceeds Expectations

(Salt Lake City-AP) -- Back in the mid-1990s, there were some who
weren't too sure a light-rail line on the Wasatch Front was worth it.

But even those who supported the TRAX trains didn't expect it to do as
well as it has.

Every day, about 31-thousand people ride TRAX on the north-south and
university lines. That's more than 12-thousand above original projections.

The line from Salt Lake City to Sandy, which opened in 1999, carries
about 22-thousand riders per day. The university line, which opened just
in time for the 2002 Winter Olympics, carries around nine-thousand riders
per day.

An extension to the University of Utah Hospital is expected to open --
ahead of schedule -- late next month. Projections call for about 24-
hundred people to use that mile-and-a-half spur each day.



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

ARIZONA DAILY STAR - Tucson
08/05/2003

Light rail tax will go to voters

By Joe Burchell

A proposed sales tax increase to pay for a light rail line will go on the
November ballot regardless of whether the citizens group backing the
initiative got enough signatures to put it there.


if approved, the measure would raise the city sales tax from 2 cents to 2.3
cents on a dollar to help pay for expanded bus service, street
improvements and the city's share of a rail line. The proposal includes a 4
percent tax on new construction.


A companion initiative identifying how the new taxes would be spent
apparently got the 12,777 signatures required to qualify for the ballot,
based on a random sample of petitions submitted by Citizens for a
Sensible Transportation Solution.


But the random sample check left the tax measure - the other half of the
transportation plan - just short of the number needed to qualify for
automatic inclusion on the ballot, meaning the county recorder must check
every signature for validity, a process that could take a month.


On Monday, the Tucson City Council voted 6-1 to put the tax measure on
the ballot to eliminate uncertainty.


Although he voted to put the measure on the ballot, Republican Mayor
Bob Walkup said he did so only to give the public a say on the matter.


The mayor said he will oppose the initiative during the upcoming
campaign, when he will also be running for re-election.


Walkup said a large-scale rail system is not something Tucson can afford
right now. Democratic Councilwoman Shirley Scott voted against putting
the measure on the ballot without having enough signatures on the
petition.


County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez said she's still legally required to finish
hand-checking the petition signatures, now that the count has started.


Attorney Clague Van Slyke III, representing the petition group, said the
group will go ahead with its lawsuit to force the city to restore more than
900 signatures that were thrown out. Van Slyke said the group wants to
be on the ballot by virtue of its petition signatures to eliminate any
appearance that it's getting special treatment.


Both ballot initiatives must be approved by voters to implement the plan.



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

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
village3sep03,1,5173871.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Los Angeles Times
September 3, 2003

'Transit Village' on Tap in Valley

A land swap will allow a 2,000-student school and a mixed-use complex in
North Hollywood.

By Patrick McGreevy
Times Staff Writer

Moving to lessen crowding in Los Angeles city schools and create a new
urban center in the San Fernando Valley, Mayor James K. Hahn and
school district Supt. Roy Romer announced a land swap on Tuesday that
will allow for construction of a high school, housing, offices and shops
next to the North Hollywood subway station.

The project is aimed at reviving a depressed area of vacant lots and
empty buildings at the subway system's northernmost station. City and
school officials also said the project will create a rare opportunity for
students and teachers to use public transportation to get to the new $77-
million campus for 2,000 pupils, while also providing 700 units of adjacent
housing for residents who could commute on the Red Line to jobs
downtown and elsewhere.

"it's going to be the first real transit village in the city," said Hahn, who is a
member of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board. "it's going to
have housing, jobs and schools located right here at a rail transit center."

Hahn announced the land swap after arriving at the North Hollywood
Metro Rail subway station on a school bus to the applause and shouts of
high school cheerleaders.

Under the agreement, the MTA will trade dormant railroad right-of-way
along Chandler Boulevard just east of the subway station for land to the
south owned by the Los Angeles Unified School District and the city's
Community Redevelopment Agency.

As a result, the new East Valley high school can be built on an undivided
piece of land and a residential development — called NoHo Commons —
can be built immediately to the west of the campus.

The MTA's new property may be used for other transit projects, such as a
proposed high-speed bus route, officials said.

Residents and merchants in North Hollywood have complained for years
that delays in the NoHo Commons project have created eyesores as
abandoned buildings on the site collect graffiti and dirt lots sit empty and
fenced off.

Groundbreaking for the new campus is proposed for early next year, with
a completion goal of July 2006. The school is expected to help relieve
crowding at Grant and North Hollywood high schools, Romer said.

The agreement announced Tuesday is welcomed by a school district that
continues to struggle to find space for dozens of new schools needed in
the next decade to accommodate a growing population of students.

Tuesday was the first day of the school year for the 378,000 Los Angeles
Unified students on the traditional school calendar, but an additional
360,000 youngsters are on different schedules because of crowding.

While some other school projects face public opposition because of the
need to displace residents, the North Hollywood property only has one
business left to relocate, said Guy Mehula, the district's deputy chief for
facilities.

The pact comes just months after the Los Angeles redevelopment agency
threatened to sue the school district over a separate middle school
proposed for North Hollywood.

Hahn and Romer worked out a compromise in May, however, that will
incorporate that middle school in plans for a new Valley Plaza Shopping
Center. The two officials also promised to cooperate more on other school
projects in which both the city and district are eyeing the same land.

Of the 120 new schools that the district has proposed, 13 have been
finished and 50 more are under construction. Los Angeles Unified officials
are still working on acquiring sites for others.

Romer said he hopes the North Hollywood project will help show progress
in addressing school crowding so that voters will look favorably on
approving another $2-billion bond measure in March to help build
additional schools. In November 2002, voters approved $3.35 billion in
bonds for Los Angeles school construction and repairs.

"We are not yet done," Romer said. The district is "absolutely determined
to get every school" back to a traditional September-to-June calendar.

Some of the land being swapped will go to the NoHo Commons
development, a long-delayed, $218-million project that includes about 700
units of housing and 271,000 square feet of office and retail space. It is
planned by developer J.H. Snyder Co. with $31 million in loans and grants
from the city redevelopment agency.

The first phase of the NoHo Commons project is scheduled to begin
construction late this month or in early October, officials said.

Although the project has been significantly scaled back since it was first
proposed several years ago, city officials continue to see it as an integral
part of the revitalization of the blighted commercial core of North
Hollywood.

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said the project is consistent with the move
toward building "urban villages" near transit hubs, which also could have
the effect of lessening traffic on local freeways.

in another attempt to ease school crowding, the Los Angeles Unified
Board of Education unanimously agreed Tuesday to ask the state for
$57.5 million in bond money to convert the old Ambassador Hotel into a
multi-school campus and retain part of the Mid-Wilshire property as a
park.

The board is asking the state for $55 million in Proposition 40 park funds
and $2.5 million in Proposition 47 education facilities money to turn the
hotel's former Cocoanut Grove nightclub into a student auditorium that the
public could use during non-school hours.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Erika Hayasaki contributed to this report.




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

Houston Chronicle
Sept. 4, 2003


Transit plan gets backing of business organization

By STEPHANIE WEINTRAUB

The Greater Houston Partnership, a much-needed ally in Metro's
campaign to extend the region's rail system, officially endorsed
Wednesday the expansion plan going to voters in November.

"Many people around the world think that to be a truly great, international
city you have to have an effective and efficient transit system, and for
many people, that dictates rail," said Deborah Cannon, the partnership's
chairwoman.

Rail is also a prescription for economic development, she said.

The partnership represents about 2,000 Houston businesses and is
encouraging them to vote for rail in November.

Metro recently approved a rail referendum package -- $640 million in
bonds to build 22 miles of rail in nine years, a five-year extension of road
funds to 2014 and more bus service.

The pared-down plan will be on the Nov. 4 ballot instead of Metro's larger-
scale plan -- 40 miles of rail with $980 million in bonds -- in hopes of
gaining support from longtime rail skeptics, such as former Mayor Bob
Lanier. Metro stresses it will eventually go back to voters and seek funds
to finish the full plan.

As business people, Cannon said, the partnership favors the smaller plan
because it makes more economic sense.

"We believe that the current plan is more fiscally viable and financially
sound," she said.

Metro Board Chairman Arthur Schechter said the business community
has made the right move for the city in supporting rail.

"It is reflective of their desire to address the community challenges that we
face with over 2 million more people coming into Houston," he said.

Passage of a rail plan will help ensure that "the quality of life in Houston
remains high enough to continue to attract the best and brightest,"
Schechter added.

in contrast to the partnership's endorsement, Let the People Vote, a local
grass-roots organization, voiced its opposition to the rail plan Wednesday.

Al Hartman, the group's co-chairman, said a rail plan concentrated inside
the Loop is nonsensical for Greater Houston, and that a true solution to
congestion is more roads, including toll roads.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2081156




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

New York Times
September 4, 2003

As Suburbs Grow, So Do Waistlines

By BRADFORD McKEE

CHANTILLY, Va.

TWO years ago, Jason and Maria Witt moved here, to the western
suburbs of Washington, and fell in love with their 1970's subdivision,
Poplar Tree Estates. The Witts bought a 4,800-square-foot house in
which they are raising three boys, 8-month-old triplets. They have quiet
streets and big lawns. What they do not have is an easy way to walk, as
they once did when they lived in Manhattan.

"We can't walk anywhere from our house," said Mrs. Witt, 29, sitting in
their large, skylighted sunroom. The nearest park is close by but too small
for meaningful exercise. She's had to resort to an elliptical trainer to work
off the 75 pounds she gained during her pregnancy.

And if she and her husband want to get their exercise by shopping or
running errands, they have to pack the babies into their Chevrolet
Suburban and drive two miles to the Greenbriar Town Center.

The suburban paradox the Witts describe — landed comfort but near-total
car dependency — is the subject of a growing debate across the
disciplines of public health and urban planning: is the American suburb,
originally conceived as a relaxing alternative to the city, now a contributor
to medical problems from obesity to depression and high blood pressure?

A wave of new research on sprawl's effect on health emerged last
Thursday when two journals, the American Journal of Public Health and
the American Journal of Health Promotion, jointly released special issues
on the subject that indicate a significant connection between sprawl and
obesity and between sprawl and hypertension.

The number of miles Americans travel on the roads has doubled since
1963, according to Richard J. Jackson, an environmental epidemiologist
and the director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. (He was also the
guest editor of the special issue of the American Journal of Public Health.)
The number of overweight children ages 6 to 11 has doubled in the last 25
years — the average 11-year-old today weighs 11 pounds more than in
1973. Nearly 65 percent of American adults are now overweight, and the
incidence of diabetes doubled between 1980 and 2000, to 12 million
cases.

James Robins, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the Harvard
School of Public Health, has read news reports of the sprawl research.
"This seems so far from what people would take as strong scientific
evidence or a direct causal link," he said.

"I doubt that these are going to be considered earth-shaking articles in the
profession," he said. "But they're very useful for generating interesting
hypotheses."

While urban planners tend to discuss the suburbs in quality-of-life terms,
researchers increasingly use clinical measures like anxiety, depression
and substance abuse. The number of prescriptions for antidepressants
has increased remarkably, a point Dr. Jackson makes to suggest that
although the suburbs were built for convenience, they may also have
wrought their share of frustration by placing life's staples a long drive from
home.

People in many suburban neighborhoods find that the streets they live on
practically invite them to stay in their cars. There is often simply no
sidewalk, forcing some suburbanites to put on their running shoes and
pedometers inside giant malls, clocking miles as they pass the various
cookie stands, ice cream shops and bagel makers.

A vocal group of urban planners, especially those known as New
Urbanists, have embraced the new studies as proof of their longstanding
contention that small-town life is the best. Among other imperatives, the
New Urbanists and their followers have cited beauty, nature and money
as reasons to face down suburban sprawl, with its dependence on cars,
and once again build old-fashioned neighborhoods with streets laid in tight
grids. "Now we can say there are physiological issues, too," said Peter
Calthorpe, a New Urbanist architect and urban designer in Berkeley, Calif.

The studies issued last week are the clearest example yet that the
planning and public health fields are beginning to speak each other's
language on suburban sprawl. After focusing for years on Americans'
diets, health experts have turned to assess the degree to which
Americans' four-wheel lives contribute to obesity, hypertension, coronary
disease, diabetes, asthma, even mental disorders like anxiety and
depression.

"We do an environmental impact statement for a new subdivision, and we
look at trees and birds and the rest," Dr. Jackson said. "But we need to
look at the impacts on human health."

Stay-at-home wives have often complained about the isolation of
suburbia, working parents point to the killer commutes and teenagers
moan about the boredom. Now Dr. Jackson believes there are
persuasive, if yet circumstantial, links between the suburbs and certain
physical and mental diseases. If so, he said, the building of larger and
larger suburbs might be viewed as a colossal mistake.

The study published last week in the American Journal of Health
Promotion is the one most likely to alarm public health and planning
specialists. The study's authors, Barbara A. McCann, research director of
Smart Growth America, an anti-sprawl coalition in Washington, and Reid
Ewing, research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth at the
University of Maryland in College Park, developed a "sprawl index" to
quantify the density of 448 counties nationwide and then compared
government health data on 200,000 people living in those counties.

The results of the obesity study — which accounted for variables like age,
gender, race, diet and physical activity — suggest that people in more
sprawling suburban areas, like Geauga County, Ohio, and Walton County,
Ga., weigh more (as much as six pounds more in the most sprawling
areas) and have higher blood pressure than people in more densely
developed areas like New York City.

THERE are critics who believe such results are overblown. Wendell Cox,
a demographer and transportation consultant in Belleville, ill., believes the
results of the study favor the highest-density cities, like New York. "If you
look at San Francisco versus its suburbs, you find a pound or two pounds
difference" in expected body weight, Mr. Cox said. "If we all walked like
New Yorkers, we'd all weigh a little bit less. But we're not going to weigh
like New Yorkers until we all live like New Yorkers."

And in neighborhoods with no sidewalks, walking like New Yorkers is
almost impossible. Carol Cowart, a 50-year-old secretary in Nashville,
recently moved from a neighborhood that had sidewalks on every street to
a neighborhood where there are none. "I can walk in the street," said Ms.
Cowart, who is 5 feet 8 inches tall, weighs 220 pounds and needs to
exercise for her diabetes. "But if there's a car coming, I have to get off the
street and into the dirt." She said she is not likely to push her grandson
down the street in a stroller, either. Instead she has to drive six miles twice
a week to the Centennial Sportsplex for water aerobics, and the rest of the
time to a park where she can walk.

Planning boards and public works officials in some cities have begun
making it easier for people to walk around. The city of Nashville has
budgeted $55 million over the past three years and plans to spend
another $230 million in the next decade installing sidewalks throughout
the city, said Rick Bernhardt, executive director of the planning
department there. The city spends about $20 per foot of sidewalk,
although in difficult areas they can cost $125 per foot.

Priority for sidewalks in Nashville goes to areas around schools. A study
released in April by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a research
and advocacy group in Washington, found that 71 percent of parents with
school-age children walked to school themselves as children, but only 18
percent of their own children walk to school.

William Smith of Silver Spring, Md., saw neighborhood children take
buses rather than walk 600 feet to East Silver Spring Elementary School
when his children started school in 1999. "Parents don't feel safe with the
kids walking," Mr. Smith said.

Peg Cheng, a 31-year-old career counselor at the University of
Washington, lives near the old city limit of Seattle, at 85th Street. Beyond
85th Street, she said, there are no sidewalks, "which makes it very difficult
for those of us who live near 86th and 87th to walk around our
neighborhood."

Some Seattle neighborhoods never got sidewalks after they were
annexed by the city. "There was never any money to do it," said David
Levinger, president of Feet First, a local pedestrian advocacy group. "in
almost all areas of the city, there are rights of way that permit construction
of sidewalks," Mr. Levinger said. "Then it becomes a property war over
parking."

Of course, no one would want to discourage parking. In fact, it is only
when their cars are parked that Americans have the opportunity to get out
of them to walk.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/garden/04REPO.html?pagewanted=p
rint&position=




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

http://www.emedia.com.my/Current_News/NST/Tuesday/National/200309
02075336/Article

New Straits Times » National
2003/09/02

Monorail a huge hit with commuters

Zulita Mustafa

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 1:  The public has responded overwhelmingly to
the newly-launched KL Monorail service, with large crowds using it on the
second day after its launch.

At Bukit Bintang station in Jalan Sultan ismail commuters, mostly holiday-
makers, crowded the station to experience the ride.

Lawyer B. Lobo, 56, who boarded a train from KL Sentral station to Bukit
Bintang, described the ride as enjoyable, smooth and fast.

"it's great, sophisticated and easier to travel in the city now. The KL
Monorail is another milestone in the development of the city," he said.

However, he said public amenities should be user-friendly and felt that the
compartment in the train was too small to fit the large number of
passengers.

"It is really packed and if there is no control from the operator it will create
congestion." Shamsul Bahrin Ahmad, 43, from Kajang Utama, said: "It is
economical, safe and cost-efficient." For Keri Yam, 41, of Petaling Jaya,
who is a public relations assistant, the route serviced by the monorail was
convenient for commuters who wish to avoid the jam.

"I usually shop in the Bukit Bintang area and now with the opening of the
new route, I will definitely use the service. It will save a lot of my time," she
said.

Another passenger, Bawani Nair Govinda Nair, 29, a housewife, said:
"The train is a new experience for most Malaysians and we should be
proud of it. Although I'm a bit afraid of its height, I enjoyed the ride." Ariff
Hakim Ramli, 25, from Kuala Lumpur, said the train was fast considering
the distance between the stations was short.

He added that it surprised him as it only took about 18 minutes to get to
KL Sentral station from Titiwangsa.

Meanwhile, KL Monorail System Sdn Bhd managing director Bakhtiar
Jamilee said the response to the second day's rides was overwhelming.

The RM1 rides till the end of the month would help promote the service.

"The monorail will add a new dimension to travel within the city. For a
start, travel will be cheaper, com-pared with the higher meter charges and
time spent trying to hail a taxi. It will also come as a relief for car owners
wishing to save on fuel, wear-and-tear and parking costs," he told the New
Straits Times at the Bukit Bintang station today.

Bakhtiar believed that the KL Monorail would be well received for simple
reasons of convenience and the cost-savings it offers users. Tickets for
the monorail service for 11 stations will be priced at RM1.20, RM1.60,
RM2.10 and RM2.50.

The stations are Titiwangsa, Chow Kit, Medan Tuanku, Bukit Nanas, Raja
Chulan, Bukit Bintang, imbi, Hang Tuah, Maharajalela, Tun Sambanthan
and KL Sentral.

He said the KL Monorail would also have an impact on how and where
commuters spent their lunch hour because the rail system was so
convenient, with stations practically at the doorsteps of the Golden
Triangle's buildings and businesses. He added that 10,000 passengers
were on board yesterday and expected to increase today.

Operating hours of the KL Monorail are at 10am to 3pm for this month.




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

The Star Online
Tuesday September 2, 2003

Monorail gets thumbs-up

BY CHOW HOW BAN

KUALA LUMPUR: Commuters gave KL Monorail the thumbs up after
taking a ride on the train.

After the official launch by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad yesterday, the gates at all 11 monorail stations were opened to
commuters.

Badrul Hisham Mustafa, 25, who is partially blind, was impressed by the
service.

"It was very good," he said.

He pointed out that KL Monorail staff were also helpful with the blind and
disabled.


OVERWHELMING RESPONSE: The crowd waiting Monday to get onto
the monorail at the Bukit Bintang station.

Steven Khoo, who brought his family to the city, said they enjoyed the
monorail ride very much.

"It was smooth and good. It was just that they should have better crowd
control, knowing that this was the first run," said Khoo, who took the train
from Bukit Nanas to KL Sentral.

"I think the monorail will help ease traffic in the city. There is no reason for
us to drive to the city," he said.

Sin Sew Lan hopped onto the train with her four-year-old son Tan Guan
Xiong and her friend after shopping at Jalan Bukit Bintang.

She said the ride was fine although it was bumpy at times.

"Shoppers will find the monorail convenient to go to shopping complexes
in the city centre," she added.

The monorail system has 11 stations – Titiwangsa, Chow Kit, Medan
Tuanku, Bukit Nanas, Raja Chulan, Bukit Bintang, imbi, Hang Tuah,
Maharajalela, Tun Sambanthan and Kl Sentral.

The areas covered are Jalan Tun Razak, Jalan Pahang, Jalan Tuanku
Abdul Rahman, Jalan Sultan ismail, Jalan Hang Tuah, Jalan Maharajalela
and Jalan Tun Sambathan.

At the Titiwangsa station, some early commuters were unable to get onto
the trains, while at KL Sentral many were prevented from entering the
station until the crowd at the counter area and platform was cleared.

The Bukit Bintang station seemed to be the busiest as it is located in the
Golden Triangle.

A spokesman for MTrans Holdings Sdn Bhd, the operator of the
RM1.18bil KL Monorail, said more commuters were expected to use the
service.

"I think they (commuters) will find it useful and it is the only system that
goes into the Golden Triangle," he added.

For the whole of this month, commuters will only have to pay a flat rate of
RM1 for a one-way ticket to any monorail station. The train service starts
at 10am and ends at 3pm during the month.

By the end of the year, the system will operate from 6am to midnight.

The monorail can travel up to 90kph with up to 214 passengers. The
travel time from the Titiwangsa station to KL Sentral is 19 minutes.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/9/2/nation/6183866
&sec=n