WMATA CEO Richard White had an online chat at the Washington Post online last Tuesday. Nothing fascinating came out of it, although I did learn something interesting:
[W]e at Metro actually do not make the decisions about where new stations should be built or where existing lines should be extended. Those recommendations come from the jurisdictions we serve. For example, Maryland wanted the Blue Line extended from Addison Road-Seat Pleasant to Largo, a project that is also now under construction with a 2004 completion date. Mayor Williams and other D.C. leaders see the New York Avenue area as a major economic development and revitalization center. This station was funded through a unique partnership between the federal government, District government, and the private sector, and it is projected that the station will generate 6,000 riders after the first year of operation.
"Metro Skybus" in India hangs from the track. It sort of looks like a ski gondola (click here for a picture), but slightly bigger. Whether people will feel safe riding a crowded car with nothing but a few inches of steel beneath them is an open question, but skybuses could be a cool way to double-deck existing structures like bridges and elevated highways.
A look into the economic benefits of New York's long-proposed Second Avenue subway:
Among the report's conclusions, already generating controversy: the price tag for the Second Avenue subway exceeds its economic development benefits by nearly $2.7 billion, largely because it would take 17 years to build.
The report, conducted for the partnership by the Boston Consulting Group and the Urban Transportation Research Center at the City University of New York, assesses economic development by incorporating real estate development, the increase in property values, jobs and income and sales and tourism. The subway project would produce $12.6 billion in benefits, but it would cost $15.3 billion, it says.
$15.3 billion over 17 years? Do they plan on tunneling with sporks?
The Oakland Tribune reports that transportation spending will be cut by $530 million under Repubilcan Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed $1.9 billion budget cuts. The Los Angeles Times reports that these cuts total some $800 million over the next two years.
Most of the media coverage of Schwarzenegger's budget plan focuses on cuts to health and human services and education. These two areas seem to be absorbing much of the fiscal problems raised by the $4-billion car tax cut that the governor signed into law Nov. 17.
Bear with me as I over-simplify this for my own benefit:
1) The car tax applies only to people who own cars.
2) The vast majority of non-drivers and non-car owners fall into three categories--the poor, the disabled, and the elderly.
3) Health and human services, education, and transportation will take the brunt of the cuts to make up for the revenues lost by the repeal of former Gov. Davis' trippling of the car tax.
4) The vast majority of people who benefit from health and human services spending fall into three groups: the poor, the disabled, and the elderly.
I know it is over-simplified, but that is the long and short of it. Draw your own conclusions from that.
-Two transit-related items in Gov Schwarzenegger's plan:
1) The plan would save $385 million by cutting transportation and other in-home services that the state provides to the elderly, blind and disabled to help keep them out of nursing homes.
2) The plan would save $630 million by repealing a new law to allow a family to get food stamps even if it owns a car valued at more than $4,650.
The second is particularly interesting. It seems that the car tax can be repealed, but it will come at the expense of the working poor. A car worth $5000 isn't exactly the nicest vehicle on the road. My beat-up Corolla is worth slightly more than that, and had I lost a job like so many hundred thousands of Americans over the past few years, I'd be saddled with this automobile. If I'm receiving food stamps to help feed my family I probably need the car to commute to my low paying job because I need the health insurance for my family since I can't count on reliable help from the state (Arnie is also cutting Medi-Cal). And now I find that if I keep my car, I lose my food stamps. But if get rid of it I have to find another way to get to my low paying job in one of the most car-addicted cities in the world. But that's OK, I'm sure that the $800 million in budget cuts to transportation won't affect mass transit in the state.
The Washington Post has been running a series of articles on cheap and quick ways to improve transportation around the metro area. Today, there is a piece about buses.
They're right when they say one of the best ways to improve buses is to post more detailed maps and schedules at stops. The problem with Metrobuses is that you see them on the street, but it's hard to tell where they go. One might see a 42 bus on Columbia Road with a sign indicating it goes to Metro Center, but how does it get there? Across U Street and down 13th? Via Connecticut and then H? Around the White House and then back up? Since the bus numbers and vague destination signs offer few clues, bus shelters should offer more information.
A New Hampshire lawmaker wants to legalize riding a bike while drunk. As someone who learned not to answer a cell phone on a bike the hard way, I can tell you from experience this is a bad, bad, baaaad idea.
Due to technical difficulties with our host, Live from the Third Rail has been down for most of Friday. We will continue to provide updates over the weekend. Thank you for your understanding.
The Mid-America Regional Council is looking at calling for a regional sales tax to fund transit across Missouri and Kansas, reports the Kansas City Business Journal:
The council will mull two options for modifying state laws. One would seek authority to collect sales taxes of as much as one-half cent regionally for transit. The other would seek authority for a full cent, which could be used for transit, public infrastructure, open space, cultural organizations and facilities, children's programs and "cooperative local government services."
Regional sales taxes are an excellent idea, and have been shown to work both in funding transit (see BART) and in funding cultural assets (see the Allegheny County Regional Asset District). They're especially useful for reliving tax-burden cities of the funding responsibility for an entire system that is equally used by non-city residents.
An innovative idea for relieving tax burden on cities and for funding needed services, especially in a time of fiscal crisis.
It's one thing for the Red Sox to raise ticket prices. Going to Fenway Park is a status symbol, something to brag about. But when the MBTA raises the price of a bus ride from 75 cents to 90 cents - well, let's just say riding a bus is not going to get any straphangers onto the A-list. You don't run into a lot of Beautiful People on the Blue Line.
Check this:
It almost makes me want to try. Funny how public safety campaigns work that way. I took the escalator with my shoe untied today and it was, like, a total rush.
A Wayne County Circuit court judge ruled on Tuesday that Detroit area leaders overstepped their mandates when they tried to transfer certain powers in order to implement a regional transit organization. The Detriot Free Press reports that:
Wayne County Circuit Judge James Rashid's ruling means the Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority [DARTA] can't apply for grants, coordinate bus service between Detroit and the suburbs or directly plan improvements to bus service in southeast Michigan.
Rashid said Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano and Macomb County Board of Commissioners Chairwoman Nancy White couldn't legally transfer to DARTA the powers they held when operating as the Regional Transit Coordinating Council.
The ruling leaves DARTA -- a grand mass transit plan in the works for nearly three years -- an impotent agency with little authority, said Renate Klass, attorney for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees locals 312 and 214, which brought the lawsuit to put an end to DARTA before it could get off the ground. The union represents Detroit Department of Transportation workers.
Federal funds destined for the start-up of the DARTA will be lost, as will much of the organization's ability to raise funds elsewhere. DARTA was apparently the latest in a long line of failed regional transit plans.
Mass transit is having problems in Detroit. Quick, someone call Oliver Stone...
Why did New Line think it would be a good idea to have a huge promotional event for Lord of the Rings on the crowded Times Square/Grand Central shuttle? LOTR fans hated it. (Gothamist has pictures.)
Hey, maybe this train makeover thing will come down to DC, what with WMATAs new focus on advertising and all. Maybe we could have the Ask Your Doctor About Allegra Car, complete with ragweed seat cushions.
Naah. What I'm waiting for is the Change the Climate Legalize and Tax Marijuana Good Vibes and Sensible Policy Love Train, cruising up and down the Red(eye) Line.
Fuel cells are making their way into mass transit, according to this story from the Chicago Tribune.
The Fuelcell Propulsion Institute is working on converting a 120-ton diesel locomotive into a fuel cell train. While the train is an Army locomotive, one of the three main goals is to demonstrate the use of fuelcell power form rail transportation in commerical venues. The idea is to create subways that could be run on fuelcell technology, thereby eliminating the concerns of reliance on the power grid. It means that there is a potential for increased fuel efficiency, but more importantly means that if there were to be more massive blackouts (see London and New York several months ago) the subways could keep moving and not trap passengers for many hours.
A ruling out of Michigan means that -- temporarily at least -- Detriot, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties can't form a regional transit system, as they lack the legal authority to do so. The Detroit Free Press has the full story.
A slightly dated news item building off RJ3's post on Amtrak funding, but I forgot to report it when it happened. Buried at the bottom of this story is a quick note of interest. Amtrak carried a record number of passengers -- 24 million for its last fiscal year. That's more than any other year in its 32 years history. And (although not noted in this article) it also improved on-time performance for some of its key routes. So don't count it out yet.
"Nextel Communications Inc. is pressing to be one of the most recognized name brands in the world, following its sponsorship of the NASCAR auto racing title with a deal to put its name on the high-profile monorail station at the Las Vegas Convention Center.
Nextel, a Fortune 300 wireless communications company serving 293 of the top 300 U.S. markets, also will sponsor a four-car monorail train. Reston, Va.-based Nextel and the Las Vegas Monorail Co. will announce the sponsorship agreement in an event at the station Tuesday morning."
Wonderful, but who would sponsor a station in a poor neighborhood where people are more dependent on transit?
As a follow up to a previous post on Britain's Railtrack and privatization, I'd like to point any interested parties to Transport Blog. The link sends one to Transit Blog's privatization category, a collection of posts from a much better informed party than this blogger. It's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the structure of Bitain's rail system. Patrick Crozier knows his stuff. Take a look at his posts, then reread my last privatization post here and form a well informed opinion.
Reuters is reporting that the 35 day old Los Angeles transit strike is at an end.
MTA and the mechanics' union today announced an agreement ending the five-week strike. Transit workers will return to work as early as tomorrow. The LA Times reports:
Limited bus service is scheduled to resume Tuesday and partial rail service will return by Wednesday, according to union and transit officials, who held a joint press conference this afternoon to announce settlement of the strike that has affected about 400,000 bus and rail patrons.
With any luck the nation's third-largest transit agency will be back on the roads and rails soon.
...oh, and I think some actor was made a judge or something
Kids aren't riding bikes as much as they used to. Apparently, parents won't let their children bike farther than they can see, fearing speeding drivers.
Are paranoid parents the first step in socializing children away from any method of conveyance other than automobiles?
Out of Michigan comes the newest proposal for a nationwide Maglev system:
[A] local company is proposing to combine magnetic levitation - a mass transportation mode using electromagnets to propel elevated trains riding on a cushion of air - with solar panels that would power hydrogen-generating substations for fuel to run both the trains and personal vehicles that could run on hydrogen. The use of solar and hydrogen fuel cell technology cold move people and cargo quickly without the air pollution generated by vehicles that burn traditional fuels.
The system, according to the proposal, would utilize the nation's 54,000 miles of interstate highway, with maglev rails and steel support structure built on one side, or in some cases down the median of the freeway. The infrastructure would be built in 60-foot sections, using construction equipment that rides the rail itself, so as to not disrupt traffic. Each section would be self-contained, in a "plug-and-play" approach.
The cost to implement such a system nationwide would be huge - an estimated $6 million per mile, or $328 billion if implemented following the U.S. interstate highway system. But the approach Chrysler and others are pushing would be far less expensive than the few existing or already proposed maglev systems, because it would use existing freeways' right-of-way.
As a comparison, one proposed system that would connect Baltimore with Washington, D.C., planned for the year 2012, has a price tag of $3.5 billion for the 36-mile route, which comes to $92 million per mile.
The idea builds on one of the more popular science fiction approaches to tranportation -- use rail to tranport both people and cars at high speed:
The elevated maglev system is much like a monorail except that the cabs that carry people and vehicles would be suspended on a cushion of air, using electromagnets.
Vehicles would drive onto a "ferry," stationed at interchanges much the same as they do presently with car ferries that cross water. Both driver and passengers would enjoy a safe ride at speeds up to 300 mph. Riders would enter their personalized destinations into a computer, using the Internet.
And on the ever-present concern over funding, the company thinks it has it all figured out:
Although the project's cost would be significant, Chrysler says the system would pay for itself through user fees. Each state would bond for its portion of the system and pay off the bonds in a maximum of 20 years.
Under the proposal, 32 percent of the revenue generated would go to various governments, on a formula of 8 percent each to the federal, state, county and city-township governments. While the system would be operated by the private sector, the government would own the system itself.
"The beauty of the ITC is it will produce revenue for the various governments without raising taxes," Chrysler says. "It is truly a public-private partnership in the real sense of the word."
I've got a couple of things to say about the proposal.
First, I think it's a fantastic idea, in theory. High speed rail transit that allows people to keep their cars for local use is an excellent idea. It removes many of the concerns with using personal rapid transit, it reduces automobile transit on the highways, and speeds up transit time. Maglev's high speeds are an excellent way to enact this.
Second, there is no way it's only going to cost $6 million a mile. And there's no way it's going to be entirely funded by user fees. This is the larger problem with all of these proposals. While I understand the need to push it through Congress with the idea that it will be "self-funding," we know that transportation is never self-funding in the United States. Just as roads require subsidies - because they are infrastructure - train transportation now qualifies as infrastructure as well, and will always require a subsidy. If they can approach this through another direction and argue that it's simply the "next generation" of interstate travel, then maybe they'll be able to push it through. Argue that it be included under DOT and not Amtrak, so that it's viewed as a right of travel, not as a luxury. Then maybe we'll see the funding needed to push this through Congress.
An article in today's Washington Post Metro section discusses an increasing shift away from automobile dependancy among Arlington County residents.
"According to the 2000 Census, more than 12 percent of [Arlington] county households are without even one vehicle, the highest rate in the region among major jurisdictions outside the District of Columbia."
Personally, I view a carless lifestyle as liberation. The freedom from financial responsibilities and auto related worries is wonderful.
disclaimer: This author does have a car, although it hasn't been driven in nearly a month.
Sound Transit has come up with some extra, unexpected money, according to a report in the King County Journal. So, what are they going to do with it? Fund ROADS:
Sound Transit's growing pot of unexpected tax money collected on the Eastside might wind up helping to squeeze two HOV lanes and building Mercer Island bus ramps on Interstate 90.
The Eastside Transportation Partnership voted Friday to ask the agency whether $40 million in Sound Transit's taxes collected on the Eastside could be spent on I-90.
The I-90 project, at $128 million, is a strong candidate: Of all the Eastside projects, it is most in need of money to be completed.
Now, to be fair, the money would be used to pay for all-day, two-way HOV lanes, something I'm firmly in favor of. But I'm not any happier about it, because it simply reinforces the fact that if a transit company has extra money, it gets sent to use roads. And if roads are underfunded, the money gets pulled from transit. So, no matter what the economic conditions, transit gets screwed.
$40 million can buy a lot of buses or light rail trains and can be used to build better transit stations. It can be used to encourage people to stop driving and therefore reduce the need to build more lanes on I-90. It can be used to extend operating hours.
But instead, $40 million that should be used to fund transit is going to fund America's habit of driving.
News of a looming transit strike in Montreal, Canada. At least there transit will be guaranteed to run during morning and afternoon rush hours, certainly better than the status quo in Los Angeles.
2 a : a property requiring much care and expense and yielding little profit b : an object no longer of value to its owner but of value to others c : something of little or no value.
Example: NJ Transit's new Trenton-Camden light rail line. Orginally called SNJLRTS (pronounced snidgelritz, rhymes with, well, nothing), it's now called the River Line. At a cost of over $1 billion, it runs 34 miles from Trenton to Camden, across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. Officials recently decreased ridership estimates from 9,300 trips to 5,900 daily. Keep in mind that's 5.900 trips, which really means half as many round trips, assuming people want to go home (which is a shaky assumption in New Jersey).
Why won't people use the River Line? First of all, SEPTA offers commuter service from Trenton right into Philadelphia. It runs paralell to the River Line, but on the Pennsylvania side of the river. The River line is as long as a commuter line, but slower and doesn't even go into Philadelphia -- you have to transfer to the PATCO subway line in Camden.
Why does it matter that New Jersey flushed a billion dollars down the toilet and risks souring the legislature to future projects, which would be a real shame, because New Jersey is what the rest of America will eventually look like.
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the union, and one of the richest. However, there aren't any real "cities" to speak of to account for that density. The urbanized areas, such as Newark, Camden and Jersey City, are mostly industrial and have been losing population for years. New Jersey is dense because it is almost entirely suburban. Many years ago, outer New York City suburbs met outer Philadelpha suburbs, creating one large mass of subdivisions across the state. Traffic is understandably bad, but not for a lack of commuting options. Jersyites who work in New York can take the extensive NJ Transit commuter rail system, Newark City Subway to PATH subway service from Jersey City and Hoboken, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and a commuter bus service of massive scope that is the envy of teenagers without drivers' licenses everywhere. Philadelphia commuters have more commuter rail lines and the aformentioned PATCO subway from Camden. Ridership rates into NYC and Philly are high since the presence of expensive bridges and a lack of parking limit driving into work to special occasions.
Despite all that transit, New Jersey roads are still clogged. Is this a sign of the failure of transit? Not at all. First of all, transit takes literally millions off cars off the roads, making many of the suburbs fiesable in the first place. In addition, much of the traffic on New Jerseys major highways is not commuter traffic -- it's trucks going from Boston to Washington or New York to Chicago. On local roads, it's also people going too and from locations within New Jersey. Another reason the rest of the country will look like New Jersey soon is that not only do Jersyites commute to cities, they commute to office parks, factories and other facilities in suburban areas. Small towns in New Jersey are home to a surprising number of pharmaceutical companies, oil refineries, chemical plants and the back-office facilities for Wall Street securities firms. Getting to these facilities during rush hour isn't too pleasant, despite the presence of local bus routes. The state can't just build more highways because there isn't much undeveloped land that hasn't already been set aside. In denser areas, the problem is being addressed. The Hudson-Bergen light rail line, just opened, will eventually go from a commuter rail terminal, past a PATH line and down through an area of the Hudson River waterfront home to dozens of new offices, now more attractive after Sept. 11. Condos are going up, and Hoboken is home to many new restaurants and bars. People can now take the train to entertainment, work, shopping and home without ever getting behind the wheel of a car. Will other secondary cities in the shadow of a bigger ones do this, or is their decline inevitable?
For people who are into this sort of thing, it's an intersting problem. Spending a billion bucks on a light rail line used by about 3,000 people isn't a good answer.
An aside: I made the assumption that you can derive the number of riders simply by cutting the number of trips in half. While this is probably true with commuter lines, it isn't the case with really good urban transit. An example: Yesterday, I went from home to work on the Metro in the morning, took Metro to Best Buy, then went home. I went out at night and came home on a bus. That's one person, four rides, one day.
A recent post to this site reminded me of developments last month in Britain.
A brief history: Near bankruptcy as a result of WWII, the big four British rail companies (which had been under government control during the war) were nationalized by the British government in 1948. The four companies were amalgamated and a new operator, British Rail, emerged.
Fast forward 45 years or so to the early 90s, the British Rail, once a diverse, powerhouse of an organization has been steadily shrinking due to gradual privatization under more than a decade of Conservative Party rule. In 1993, the Railways Act became law under Prime Minister John Major and the era of nationalized rail in the UK effectively came to an end. British rail, which had been vertically integrated (owned its own tracks and trains and was responsible for maintenance of both), was broken up and many of its parts were sold. The entity that owned the tracks, stations, signals, tunnels, bridges, and level crossings became Railtrack; while the both passenger and freight operations were sold off to private operators. Railtrack, although responsible for the infrastructure, contracted much of the maintenance work to large private contractors.
A favorite subject of many Brits is the miserable quality of their national rail system. The privatization effort of the 90s was in large part intended to solve many of the service problems that had plagued British Rail. In actuality (ask any Brit) the problems seemed to have worsened. Additionally, this period also saw an increase in fatal accidents, including notably the Ladbroke Grove disaster also, known as the Paddington Crash, (10/5/99, 31 dead, 400+ injured), the Hatfield Crash (10/17/00, 4 dead, 31 injured), and the Potters Bar crash (7 dead, 76 injured). The Hatfield crash was directly attributed to poorly maintained tracks; investigators of the Paddington crash have pointed to corporate driver training courses, signal maintenance issues, and Railtrack’s emergency escalation procedures; the Potters Bar crash was caused by a faulty set of points that should have been spotted by a maintenance employee.
So where am I going with this? Well, on 10/03/02, ownership of the system was transferred from Railtrack (then facing manslaughter charges as well as bankruptcy) to the non-profit, Network Rail. Although Network Rail is not technically considered a public agency in and of itself, the British government is the guarantor for its debts. Some saw this transfer as the first step toward renationalizing the rail system.
In a more recent development, late last month, Network Rail announced that it was suspending all seven contracts with private rail maintenance companies for financial and safety reasons--a move that would save an estimated 300 million pounds per year. It is this step that is gaining wider attention, seen by many as a giant leap toward renationalizing the world’s oldest railway system. Wresting the maintenance contracts from the corporate giants has been hailed by unions as a leap forward that will translate to a safer, more efficient rail system. Unions had criticized the private contractors for implementing cost-cutting shortcuts at the expense of safety, a sentiment echoed by government audits.
However, problems abound for Network rail. A reported 295 million pound profit in 2002 dropped to an almost 300 million pound loss in 2003, while its debts have soared to more than 9 billion pounds. Reasons for this dramatic shift vary; some contend that the organization is only now recognizing the effects of reversing cost-cutting shortcuts implemented by Railtrack and its contractors.
Britain’s situation offers us a few reminders. Most importantly, rail travel is in most cases, not a profitable venture, it does not generally pay for itself. Turning an industry such as this over to for profit companies exhibits a severe misunderstanding of this segment of the transportation industry. Such actions inevitably result in a decrease in the quality of service to ridership and in some cases produce the most dire of consequences.
Do people really care that some pristine concrete gets covered up? Will people trade less frequent service and higher fares for the ability to ride in a train not covered in ads? I think not. If selling more advertising goes as far to close Metro's budget gap, it's not only a good idea, it's the only option.
The New York Times (subscription required) has a great article today on the Canadian National Railway. CN is one of the most profitable railways in the world and really shows that railroads not only can be profitable but are still a vital part of a nation's economy:
Canadian National, which has transformed itself over the last decade from a lumbering government agency into the envy of North American railroads, recently completed a share buyback worth $655 million and gave notice of plans to raise up to $1 billion in debt. Cash flow is at record levels, and the share price has surged almost 50 percent so far this year.
And, more importantly:
"No American railroad holds a candle to CN at the moment in terms of efficiency," said Frank N. Wilner, a former chief of staff at the Surface Transportation Board, which regulates the railroad industry in the United States.
So what is Canada National doing differently?
CN is looking beyond the boundaries of rail transportation to realize that the game is now much larger. It's about controling all methods of cargo transpot. CN is signing up independent truckers as contractors so it can move cargo containers in and out of yards quickly and on it's own schedule. It's also doing things such as purchasing Great Lakes Transportation which not only controls 382 miles of rail track, but owns 8 ships that carry iron ore.
Railroads have become just one part of the game. Becoming the transportation company of choice requires using the best methods without concern for being tied to the past -- and, the the Times article is right, CN is heading toward being the leader in that field.
You have to love America's can-do spirit. Does the moon look impossibly far away? We can land on it. Trains are too slow? We'll just strap some jet engines to 'em.
Needless to say, I think the 1/9 skip-stop service to Van Cortlandt Park wouldn't have taken so long if there was a Rolls Royce behemoth strapped to the back. I would be at my high school in about 3 minutes instead of an hour.
Agencies will spend $530 million to upgrade the Chicago El's Brown line. That may seem like a lot of money, but keep in mind the line serves 60,000 riders, which is more than the Baltimore, San Jose and Sacramento light rails put together.
Wi-Fi is onboard the Capitol Corridor. The trial program will last 3 months and Wi-Fi will be available in limited capacity. While in the test period, Wi-Fi will be available for only 20 people at a time. The first month of Wi-Fi will be free of charge and service will be available for a
fee in the following months.
The Ft. Worth Star-Telegramreports Amtrak is set to recieve $1.22 billion next year, which is enough to maintain service for appropriators' districts, but not enough to fix infrastructure problems.
Amtrak will continue to suffer from chronic punctuality problems and breakdowns.
People won't ride it because of said problems.
When the 2005 budget comes around, Congress will short-change Amtrak because nobody rides it outside of the Northeast Corridor.
Sometimes, you need to spend money to make money -- by underfunding maintainance, you guarantee the paltry sum that is spent will go down the drain. Privatize the system, you say? How do you suppose unsubsidised rail travel will compete against gas-tax financed interstate highways and lawsuit-proof, constantly bailed-out airlines? Perhaps we should maintain government ownership of the tracks and privatize just the trains. How long do you think it will take before some congressman holds a train company's license (or the track budget) hostage unless it makes unprofitable stops in his town?
I think rail transit should get a maintainance budget from a dedicated fund -- a gas tax surcharge, perhaps -- just like the interstates. Cut long-haul routes that lose too much money and encourage regional lines that could compete with short-haul commuter planes.
As some of you may know, following the use of Wifi on mass transit is one of my personal interests. A quick news bite out of France reports that:
Passengers taking France's high-speed TGV trains between Paris and Bordeaux will be able to test a system giving them broadband, wireless access to the Internet from the middle of next month, the state rail company SNCF said Friday.
The WiFi experiment, which runs to March next year, will be free for passengers carrying their own wireless-ready computers and headphones, while others can rent the equipment for EUR 8 (USD 9).
An access code will also be provided at the stations to allow users to tap into news and entertainment programmes that will be available via the service in 15 wagons on the specially outfitted trains.
This is taking Wifi on transit to the next step -- they aren't just providing Starbucks-esque open access, but they're using the Wifi network to serve content that would otherwise be delivered by in-coach televisions and/or headphone hookups. It reduces the cost of outfitting the trains, as it isn't necessary to enable two systems, plus is makes both people with and without laptops very happy.
There really are only two types -- fatalistic and sarcastic. From the Newark Star-Ledger:
Yesterday, NJ Transit began offering its customers an easier way to avoid the end-of-the month crunch by allowing them to buy their monthly tickets online.
"Welcome to the late 20th century," said Doug Bowen, vice president of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers.
Ontario's $5.6- billion deficit means municipalities may have to wait longer than anticipated for the new Liberal government to deliver on its promise to dedicate $300 million a year in gasoline taxes for transit investments, the province's infrastructure minister said yesterday.
"We committed to a three-year timetable, but obviously with the $5.6-billion deficit it may be lengthened out," David Caplan told reporters at the Canadian Urban Transit Association's fall conference.
Mr. Caplan insisted, however, that the Liberals are determined to fulfill the promise to deliver two cents per litre of the existing gasoline tax to municipalities for transit infrastructure.
The move would mean the infusion of $300 million a year into Ontario's tattered public transit systems, effectively doubling the current budget. Mr. Caplan, in addition to being vague about exactly when the money would start to flow, also insisted he needs to consult further before deciding how it would be divided up among communities.
When deficits arise, the first thing to get cut is transit -- even when the money was originally collected for the purpose of funding it.
Patrick Crozier had an interesting post on Transport Blog several weeks ago looking at what country has the best transit system. While the jury is still out on that topic, Olso, Norway, has Europe's worst transit, according to an customer satisfaction survey reported by Aftenposten Nettugaven:
More than half of Oslo's public transit users don't think the capital's trams and buses are worth their ticket prices. Poor frequency and unreliable schedules mean half of those questioned won't recommend using the transit system.
Some of the more interesting statistics out of the study:
47 percent of passengers think Oslo has a good transit system.
82 percent of passengers in Barcelona think the local public transit is good.
Oslo scored lowest in terms of overall satisfaction. Barcelona was highest, followed by Helsinki, Geneva, Vienna, Stockholm and Copenhagen.
49 percent of passengers in London and Manchester were satisfied with their public transit system.
In Oslo, only 24 percent of those responding said they felt a ride on a local bus or tram was worth the price, currently NOK 20 (about USD 3) for a single ride purchased in advance. Ticket prices jump to NOK 30 (USD 4.20) if bought on board a tram.
Interestingly enough, WMATA reports that, on a scale of 1 to 7 (one lowest, seven highest), the mean satisfaction score for Q3 2003 was about a 5.07 -- certainly higher than the equivalent of 24% saying they felt a ride was worth the cost, but definitely not close to how effective Barcelona is.
The real question, though, is whether public transit systems really listen to the public in the United States. All too often, I think, public transit treats itself like a utility - something people have to use - and often forces people to change their ways of acting to fit transit, rather than altering transit to fit the needs of the people.
WMATA has been better than a lot of transit authorities at this (heck, look at Baltimore's system), but still has a way to go. Too often, politics take the place of customer satisfaction. And, no, this isn't a call for the privatization of mass transit in the States, but it is a call for public transit authorities to start thinking more like businesses. If you don't keep your customers happy, they're going to go elsewhere. And in many of these cases, there is an elsewhere to go -- to the automobile.
With the Governator on his way into office, things aren't looking too hot in California for mass transit, according to the Contra Costa Times:
The day after Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger takes office, state transportation officials expect to release a drastically reduced five-year estimate of gas tax receipts.
At best, the state will have no money for new highway or transit projects for five years, wrote California Transportation Commission Chairman R. Kirk Lindsey in a letter to Schwarzenegger Chief of Staff Patricia Clarey.
At worst, if the state continues to borrow highway funds and Congress fails to reverse a shortfall created by a lower federal tax rate on ethanol, a newly mandated component of gasoline, officials could be forced to cut by two-thirds some $5 billion in planned work.
In addition, the crisis could compel the state to postpone an additional $3.5 billion in projects from Gov. Gray Davis' highly touted 2000 Transportation Congestion Relief Program.
Expect delays of months or years in long-awaited projects such as the fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel, Vasco Road safety work, widening of I-238 in Alameda County, BART connector to the Oakland Airport and the San Jose BART extension.
The crisis could also stall up to 18 months the widening of hypercongested Highway 4 in east Contra Costa County from Loveridge to Somersville road, according to county transportation officials.
Precisely how the governor-elect intends to cope with mounting transportation debt, stalled projects and dire forecasts remains largely unknown.
He has not made public any transportation-related appointments or placed any renowned transportation specialists on his transition team, and most of his specific financing proposals have disappeared from his Web site.
And given the LA transit strike, among other things, this doesn't bode well for the future of public transit in California. We all know who gets screwed when the choice is between fixing highways and funding transit. When there isn't any money to go anywhere, the only thing certain is that it isn't going to be pretty.
TOLLROADSNews, which also got props from Patrick at Transport Blog, has an article about the new span over the Carquinez Strait in northern California. They call it "the new span dubbed Carquinez III," which, emphatically, it is not called. It's the Alfred Zampa bridge, named after a worker who helped build the Golden Gate Bridge and one of the other spans across the strait. One of the things that makes this bridge unique is that it's perhaps the only major bridge in the world named after someone who physically built bridges.
Let's hope this was just an error and that TOLLROADSNews' "free market bent" doesn't fullfill liberals' worst fears about the right -- that conservatives see labor and laborers as simply another input to be squeezed for maximum results at minimum cost.
