A Year Of Decision

Thomas Paine seems to be right, all the time: these are times that try men’s (and women’s) souls, especially for those who care about a functioning transportation system that will enable this country to right itself and resume its place among the great --- and prosperous --- nations of the world.

The Congress is in deadlock and will stay that way; it is an election year, but even if it were not, it has shown itself to be incapable of acting in the national interest, no matter what the consequences.

So this time around, the election will once again be not just a changing of the guard or a re-arrangement of the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic --- for we are, indeed, sinking.

It will be a referendum on the future of America, and on the kind of world we want to live in. While transportation infrastructure is our cause, it is beyond a caring for things physical that drives us: a functioning, accessible transportation system is essential for freedom, and freedom is essential for democracy. The highway-only funding policies that have put us into transportation gridlock, raised the costs of living for us all, and polluted our air and water to boot, are clearly unsustainable. We must make them unacceptable, by electing people who are free of the corporate domination that so corrupts our Republic, and makes cynics of its citizens.

How to do that? As Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy. And he is us.”

It is time to get off our backsides, get involved in the political process, and demand Congressional and Presidential accountability to the people, instead of to the narrow band of campaign funders which has dictated American policies, for so many decades.

Is that a bridge – or a railroad --- too far?

It had better not be…

Amtrak at 40: A Rider’s Perspective

Washington, D.C. rail advocate M. Paul Shore hates it when the media use expressions from the steam-train era to describe modern passenger railroading. He says that it makes rail travel appear nostalgic, when it should be a vital part of the modern modal mix. This writer agrees, but there are instances when such a reference is appropriate. Amtrak has “chugged along” for the past 40 years, from one crisis to another.

The people who have managed Amtrak over the years are not entirely to blame for this. At times, management made innovative changes, and made an effort to give its trains the distinctive character that would enhance the value of those trains as Amtrak's brands. Unfortunately, there was always a limit to how much innovation Amtrak management was allowed to initiate, and a limit to how long a customer-oriented initiative could last. That limit was often imposed by the severe funding constraints that Amtrak's Congressional and Administration regulators have always placed upon it. Somehow, the elected leaders whose support Amtrak needs often appear overly anxious to see immediate results from Amtrak, rather than allowing satisfied customers to spread the word that rail travel is the best travel.

It is easy to blame management for all of Amtrak's difficulties, but such an attitude would be overly simplistic, as well as unfair. As previous articles in this series have discussed, Amtrak has gone from one crisis to another, never had sufficient funding to satisfy the level of customer demand that could be generated, and was never even permitted to look forward to a day when rail transportation for people would receive the respect it deserves from government or the rest of the transportation industry.

Many of the readers of D:F, including this column, are managers, advocates for better rail service, or related to the transportation industry in some other way. To anyone familiar with American rail transportation, Amtrak's experiences as transportation's step-child is a long-standing story, the sorrow of which does not diminish with repetition. To a potential passenger who is not concerned with the industry and merely wants to travel by train, Amtrak's constant political and financial difficulties are irrelevant. They just want to go somewhere, and they do not care who might be to blame for keeping Amtrak one step ahead of being relegated to the dustbin of history.

So, if there is something that Amtrak managers can do to entice people onto the train, and such an initiative is inexpensive, it is probably worthwhile to make the attempt. If the cost is sufficiently low, Amtrak would not have much to lose. It appears to this writer that Amtrak may not be doing enough to accommodate a large segment of its riders: those who use local transit at their origin, destination or both. In addition, Amtrak is missing out on potential riders, since it does not even keep track of how many of them it turns away. These are separate issues, but they are related. Both concern a failure on Amtrak's part to accommodate, or even count, potential riders who could be enticed onto the rails with little effort and at a low cost. This failure could be remedied easily and inexpensively, however.

One step that Amtrak management could take is to give potential customers more information that would help them make connections between Amtrak and local transit. While a few Amtrak riders take a long-distance train from one small community to another, many more go to or from a city, or between two cities. This is certainly true in the Northeast Corridor (NEC) region, where almost every stop serves a major city. Other corridors serve hubs such as Chicago or Los Angeles, and every long-distance train goes through a number of medium-to-large cities on the way from one major destination to another.

These cities have local transit in common. Using transit is part of the urban experience, and people who live in cities are familiar with it. The New York subways, the Chicago Loop, San Francisco's cable cars and the streetcars in New Orleans are tourist attractions in their own right. Visitors to those and other cities that have strong transit systems can use transit to get around town, and many do.

Still, Amtrak does not appear to place much effort into encouraging transit use for its riders after they step off the train. This appears puzzling, in light of the extensive use that local rail providers make of Amtrak property. In the NEC, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA and MARC (to name three) run on Amtrak-owned rail and share stations with Amtrak. Local rail also serves such Amtrak hubs as Chicago, Los Angles and Seattle. Local “commuter” rail also connects with Amtrak in such places as Dallas, Salt Lake City and South Florida. Other rail transit modes: subway/elevated (“heavy rail”) and streetcar/light rail operations connect with Amtrak in many more places.

It would be reasonable to expect that Amtrak would give its potential customers enough information to enable them to transfer easily to their destinations, but Amtrak usually mentions only the name, phone number and web site of the local rail providers (and bus-only systems, in some cases). The Amtrak timetable does not give a new rider information about where local transit goes, or how close it comes to the train station. That information is readily available from transit providers, and Amtrak is in a good position to disseminate it to potential riders in timetables and on the Amtrak web site in a form that new riders will find useful.

To Amtrak's credit, the timetable mentions most of the rail providers in the country, as well as in the Canadian cities served by Amtrak: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. It also mentions its Canadian counterpart, VIA Rail. With phone numbers and web sites for local transit providers, riders can learn where connecting transit takes them, and can plan their trips accordingly, but this is not easy for the uninitiated. It would not be difficult for a transportation professional, rider advocate or dedicated rail fan, but for a casual tourist, who is visiting a specific city for the first time, the task can be daunting. Merely being required to make such an effort could discourage some potential Amtrak customers from using the train to go to their destinations. These are riders that Amtrak can still entice onto a train.

In this writer's opinion, Amtrak should do more to inform potential riders about transit options in their destination cities. It is unreasonable to assume that the casual traveler has the sophistication to plan his or her transit use in the destination city by calling the local transit or using the provider's web site. That site may not be user-friendly for persons who are unfamiliar with the layout of the city or where the transit goes. Amtrak could solve this problem easily and inexpensively, and make many new friends in the process.

Many Amtrak managers spent portions of their careers managing local transit providers, so they are familiar with those providers. Amtrak also works with local transit providers in many cities, often on issues concerning shared track or stations. It would be an easy task for Amtrak to provide more detailed information about local connecting transit in the timetable and on the Amtrak web site. The most important information that Amtrak can provide customers is which transit lines connect with Amtrak at or near the station, and how to get there. Of course, the information must be up-to-date, but it would be easy to present, and presenting it to customers in an understandable format will allow them to plan their trips more effectively. That, in turn, would encourage them to use Amtrak more often.

Unfortunately, Amtrak does not even know where all of its potential customers are, because it does not keep track of potential riders who cannot be accommodated. When a train is reported as being sold out, Amtrak does not keep a record of the number of potential riders who request space on a train and cannot be accommodated. This procedure appears to be the same, whether the request is made to a reservation agent or on the web site. In short, Amtrak does not know when a potential rider is turned away, or whether that potential customer settled for another train or another departure date, or opted not to travel on Amtrak.

It would be relatively easy and inexpensive for Amtrak to program its reservation system to receive, store and report this information. This information would be extremely valuable for Amtrak, since it would measure pent-up demand for a particular train or origin-destination pair. With data on customers who cannot be accommodated, Amtrak would know where there is excess demand for travel. In the short run, this information would help Amtrak to assign equipment efficiently, in an effort to satisfy some of that demand. In the long run, it could bolster efforts by rail advocates, as well as by Amtrak, to campaign for increased frequency of service in a corridor, or for the addition of a new route. This information would be especially useful in a campaign for more capital funding for Amtrak, so it could buy more equipment to use in satisfying the currently-unmet demand.

New York rider advocate Gary Prophet discovered that Amtrak does not keep track of people who were turned down when they request accommodation on a specific train. Prophet is Vice-President of the Empire State Passengers' Association (ESPA) and Treasurer of the Rail Users' Network (RUN). He is especially concerned about Empire Service, and has criticized Amtrak for not running longer trains on the Empire route and beyond, to Montreal, Toronto and Chicago. Prophet believes that, if Amtrak knew how many potential customers were turned away, it could take steps to lengthen the trains and satisfy the demand.

Prophet notes that the ridership on the Empire corridor peaks at certain times: summer, winter holidays and spring break at the many colleges and universities along the route; so Amtrak can anticipate extra demand at those times. He expressed his concern that Amtrak does not run enough equipment to meet that demand when it occurs. He recalled when reservations were not required to ride on Empire trains, but that changed in 1991, when the service moved into Penn Station and out of Grand Central Terminal. “The FL-9 locomotives that Amtrak used at the time could only pull nine cars, eight coaches and a cafe car, so they required reservations because of the limited capacity” he told this writer. Today, most Empire trains now carry only four or five coaches and are often sold out at periods of peak demand.

Chicago advocate Fritz Plous discovered the same problem independently and confronted Amtrak managers about the issue. Plous reports that, at a conference in September, 2010, he asked Stephen Gardner, Vice-President for Policy and Development at Amtrak, to add this feature to Amtrak's reservation software. When Gardner asked him why that would be necessary, Plous reports that he replied: “Amtrak is the only computerized intercity train reservation system in the country. Only Amtrak has the power to document the actual size of passenger-train demand in this country. All of us in this room know from daily experience that the market for passenger rail is growing faster than the number of seats we can put out there for the public, but all we have is anecdotal evidence, because we can't get the numbers.” Plous also reports that John C. Bennett, Amtrak AVP for Policy, Standards and Business Integration: Stations Development/ADA Program Director, answered his question as follows: “We lose money on every passenger. So the more passengers we handle, the more money we lose. Congress doesn't like that. They want to see us reduce our losses and earn more money on each passenger so they can reduce our subsidies.”

It appears certain that every advocate for better service on Amtrak also wants to see Amtrak make more money on every passenger, and it does not appear that turning passengers away accomplishes that objective. Enticing passengers to ride Amtrak trains does, because the margin over and above the variable cost of transporting any individual rider can help pay for the fixed costs of running the railroad. In short, the more passengers Amtrak carries, the more those riders help to cover the costs of buying and maintaining capital assets. Politically, Amtrak also needs as many satisfied customers as it can get. Those riders vote, and they can be more effective in persuading their elected representatives to help keep Amtrak going if they can report good experiences on Amtrak, than if Amtrak turns them away.

To be fair to Amtrak managers, they have their hands full with all the problems they have encountered lately, from politicians who believe providing passenger trains is a waste of money, to natural disasters that have made getting trains to their destinations at Chicago or points west extraordinarily difficult. If harried managers are using most of their energy just to keep the system going, and their organization has been a chronic victim of disrespect and underfunding, it is understandable that they might not exhibit a “go-getter” spirit or continuous enthusiasm about the ultimate success of passenger trains in America. They believe in trains, or they would not work for Amtrak. The riders, as well as the advocates who push for better service, also believe in trains. Unfortunately, some elected leaders do not, and efforts to keep them at bay use up energy that can be better spent on running more and better trains.

So, here in this article are some ideas that should help Amtrak management entice more riders onto the trains, and without a significant cost outlay. It should not be difficult for Amtrak to solve the two problems described in this article. It is not expensive to add information to the timetable and the web site, or to rewrite software for the internal computer system, for reservation agents and customer inquiries on the site. The additional customers who would be encouraged to use Amtrak, as well as those who would be accommodated on the trains they want, would bring in extra revenue, which Amtrak needs. It is difficult to fathom that providing the information described in this article could not be cost-effective for Amtrak.

Part of the problem with Amtrak generally may be that Amtrak managers may not be giving top priority to making sure that riders actually get to their destinations. Amtrak sometimes cancels service with “no alternate transportation provided” and the literature, especially the rail blogs, is replete with stories about riders would could not reach their intended destinations on Amtrak. Every rider who does not make it to his or her intended destination could become an adversary, but this is another problem that a cool-headed approach can solve, without spending an inordinate amount of money. The next article in this series will focus on that issue.

David Peter Alan has ridden every train Amtrak operates, as well as some that no longer run. He has traveled approximately 500,000 miles on Amtrak during the past 15 years. He is a Board Member of RUN, and practices law in South Orange, New Jersey when he is not traveling.

Re: RAIL Outlook? Good And Bad News!

It appears that rail, in almost every category, is leading the way out of our current national economic doldrums. U.S. rail freight has been posting week-over-week gains of three or four percentage points for most of the fall. Amtrak continues to post impressive ridership gains across the country, including most Virginia stations. Light rail transit is up in most markets, including strong start-up ridership on the new Norfolk Tide. Heavy rail transit is also up in most markets across the U.S., with the puzzling exception of the Washington Metro. VRE commuter rail continues to register impressive numbers, and performance. Are these results indicative of long-term trends? Can they be sustained?

On the worrisome side of the ledger, there is considerable evidence that coal, the largest single segment of rail freight, on a ton-mile basis, may be at, near, or possibly passing its peak (as this is being written!), and is likely to begin a slow decline. A recently-publicized Exxon study predicts coal use, world-wide, will begin to decline after 2025, for the first time in history. Tougher clean-air rules, expected to take effect next year in the U.S., are prompting a dramatic shift by utilities to natural gas. According to newspaper reports, Virginia is already seeing abundant evidence of the negative impact upon rail-hauled coal. [Export coal excepted.]. Closure of several coal-fired utility plants, including ones in Alexandria, Yorktown, Chesapeake (supplied by water) and at Bremo Bluff, is anticipated in the near future. Dominion Power recently announced that it is considering a huge new addition to its Chesterfield power-generating complex, which would burn natural gas, not coal. The potential negative revenue impact upon American railroads cannot be overstated.

Then there is highway competition for freight. According to recent news reports, pressure from U. S. shippers, and some truckers, for legislative approval of heavier truck weights is resulting in more exemptions from the so-called nation-wide 80,000-pound (forty-ton) limit. Trucks of 50 tons or more have thus gained approval in a large number of states. With the exception of rail’s small share of truly highway-competitive freight, that being rail-truck intermodal (“IM”), heavy cargo is the lifeblood of the U. S. rail freight industry. One does not have to be a visionary to see where this could lead.

Movement of people by rail, whether commuter or intercity, is attracting more riders all the time -- arguably this is the strongest growth segment of rail – being especially compatible with the shift of the U. S. economy from traditional heavy industry to technology and service. Yet expansion of passenger rail is constrained by: (a) freight railroads, intent upon transforming themselves into the equivalent of above-ground pipelines [two-mile-long capacity-consuming trains, even in some rail IM lanes], (b) hostile political ideologues, and their right-wing “think-tank” friends, who cannot believe, or do not wish to, that the public wants and needs train travel, (c) a growing deficit -- one that must be addressed soon -- in public investment in transportation infrastructure, and (d) lack of federal transportation policy that addresses these issues. Have you reason for optimism? Yes/No? Happy Holidays!

More Planes than Trains: Why

Financially struggling AMR, parent of American Airlines, finally filed for bankruptcy protection and reorganization at the end of November. A December 3 AP article in the RTD indicated that this was the 189^th time a U. S. airline had done so since deregulation in 1978. The same article reported that in the past decade U. S. airlines have lost a combined $54.5 billion. Yet, airlines keep ordering new jets. Less than six months ago, American announced an order for 460 new planes, from Boeing and Airbus, the delivery of which is set to begin in 2013. Reequipping the fleet is a cornerstone of American’s near-certain exit from bankruptcy and, hopefully, of the company’s return to at least marginal profitability. How could this be?

Contrast this with Amtrak, arguably no less “profitable” than American. Amtrak transports ever-increasing volumes of Virginia passengers in rail cars that are about forty years old. Much like the old American planes being replaced by the new Boeing and Airbus jets, Amtrak’s Amfleet, to which we refer, is high maintenance, and replacement of such equipment by new state-of-the art coaches could save Amtrak a bundle. Why then does Amtrak not do as American is doing? Just order, via an equipment leasing company, a replacement fleet.

An adequate answer would require a more detailed explanation than space here permits, but in a phrase, it is “U. S. industrial policy”, something that economic free-market theorists decry, and something that many would deny exists! Going back to World War II, the U. S. prohibited production of new and better rail passenger cars and of most diesel locomotives as result of the War Department’s effort to ration resources and channel them into making ships, guns, trucks, tanks and planes. That is why the WWII GI generation traveled around the U. S. in rattle-trap WWI-vintage rail coaches and sleepers, with the result that most of those veterans resolved never to ride a train again if they could avoid it! In addition, virtually all resulting rail profits were confiscated by war taxation policies. There was no Marshall Plan for U. S. railroads.

The federal government’s WWII-related aviation R&D assets provided a superb launch platform for our modern commercial aviation industry. There was nothing comparable in rail. In fact, there was only worn out track and equipment. Private railroads, seemingly oblivious to not-so-subtle policy changes in Washington, made one last costly effort to reequip themselves with streamlined passenger trains after the War. The passenger car-building industry in America responded with mostly pre-war designs. It proved to be too little too late. Introduction of commercial jets, and the Interstate Highway System, ended any hope of revival. U. S. rail car builders folded. They are no more! Not so with European and Japanese high-speed train builders.

World-wide standardization of aviation operations and the mass production of compatible aircraft were essential. U.S. passenger rail operations and designs are often not compatible abroad. Public financial support for the builders, owners, and operators of aircraft was also critical. The result is a single world-wide market for planes, but not for trains. If AMR goes broke again, their new planes can be repositioned anywhere in the world. Not so for Amtrak equipment, designed to meet AAR/FRA (freight) rail standards. That’s just part of the challenge. More in another column later. In the meantime, Happy New Year!

The Sunken ARC Tunnel Project Gets
Frank Treatment By NJDOT CEO

Last month I had the opportunity to hear and meet with New Jersey Commissioner of Transportation Jim Simpson at a breakfast sponsored by the New York Chapter of the Transportation Research Forum (TRF), a group of professional railroaders that gather monthly to hear various industry leaders speak on topics of interest.

That morning’s particular topic held more than passing interest for the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers (NJ-ARP), and myself personally, since it was entitled “Why the ARC Project was cancelled.”

Recall, that NJ-ARP active involvement in the “Access to the Region’s Core” (ARC) project began as early as 1995, when we began attending early scoping meetings aimed at defining the broad outlines of the configuration which, in turn, evolved over time into 137 alternatives and were subsequently evaluated. After the bruising 2000 general elections, Jim Simpson became Federal Transit Administrator under then-President George W. Bush in 2005 and remained in that capacity until the end of that administration. National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) Chair, George Chilson, NARP President Ross Capon and NJ-ARP member George Haikalis had an opportunity to meet with Simpson on April 28, 2008, well into the project’s definition stage, to offer our views that the monumental effort had veered way off track because it did not allow Amtrak access, did not permit operating redundancy and could not allow a track extension to Manhattan’s East Side.

During that get together, Simpson listened politely, even voiced his concern that there were indeed deficiencies in the project (like the lack of a connection between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal), but gave the three advocate participants very little hope that the course of events could be modified.

Now we find out that events transpired somewhat differently; here’s the rest of the story. After Simpson defined a “megaproject” as “...anything north of $2.5 billion (according to that definition ARC qualified) and explained that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) likes “...to give out checks...” he stated (at least what was obvious to the morning’s attendees) that the downside was that nobody in NJT, much less any other transit agency, had ever built anything near the vastness and scope of an ARC. Oh sure, the Commissioner continued, New York’s MTA was engaged in the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) of the Second Avenue Subway and the LIRR extension to GCT, but these were “no brainers.” For all these “megaprojects,” there is the need for a promoter, someone private or public, some governmental agency, that will benefit financially from the project confirmed by a “benefits analysis” (benefit/cost) to justify the expenditures for “total societal benefit” over a 100-year time frame.

But in ARC’s case, he continued, there was “little transparency” by NJT, the project’s chief promoter - it was an “unhealthy mix” of “overvalued economic benefit,” “overstated revenues,” and “underestimated costs.” The paradox, he opined, was although ARC was “...not a field of honest numbers...” and had “...poor performance...” it “...still advanced.”

And then he dropped the proverbial “bombshell.” And that was that he was one of the chief proponents that argued (unpersuasively as it happened) for the track extension from Penn Station to Grand Central. The Commissioner explained that half of all NJT riders wanted to go to the east side and that the rail extension would save them 40 minutes a day each way; best of all, the connection would yield some $15 billion in benefits and cost around $2 billion making it very attractive to advance. The final straw occurred when NJT removed the track connection between the proposed new tunnels and the existing platforms at New York Penn in mid-2007, in essence removing any Amtrak participation in the new bores. Despite meetings Simpson had at various times when he was in Washington (and later in Trenton with then-New Jersey Governor Corzine and then state Commissioner Kris Kolluri, then New York Governor Spitzer, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez, the Port Authority, the FRA, Amtrak, New York City, state, and MTA officialdom) in an effort to realign the route extension of the MTA’s #7 subway to permit the connection’s restoration, the project moved ahead relentlessly.

In 2006, when the cost of ARC was $6.0 billion (excluding the Portal Bridge project which was administered by the Federal Railroad Administration). Simpson, in his capacity as FTA Administrator, said that he was willing to add another $500 million to make the Penn Station to Grand Central connection a reality. But “...the MTA could care less.” There were union problems, catenary versus third rail technical impediments, real estate acquisition difficulties and the big kahuna - MONEY! New York just would NOT contribute any money to the project; NJ-ARP was told on countless occasions that both New York City and the state believed (convinced themselves?) that their contribution was being accounted for by the bi-state Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), which had stated its intention to contribute $3.0 billion.

Money, follow the money, as “Deep Throat” said in “All the President’s Men.” Well for ARC, Simpson said, it “...ceased to be a great project...” when it escalated from $6.0 billion to $8.7 billion to $13.5 billion. Most projects “...escalate 45%...” Simpson went on but ARC just kept climbing ever upward and “...the stakeholders never asked the cost...” because...people had no skin in the game.”

Further, “Nobody asked about the operating cost of ARC.” (Well, not quite true. NARP, NJ-ARP and the Lackawanna Coalition, among others cited numbers from the 2003 Major Investment Study (MIS) “Summary Report,” paragraph 11.2, “Operating and Maintenance Costs,” where Alternative “G,” which provided a direct rail connection between Penn Station and Grand Central, was shown to be the LEAST costly to run.)

Could the project have been saved? Commissioner Simpson suggested some “cures.” Among them (in the order Simpson presented them), risk and accountability needs to be defined. He noted that while projects are long lasting; most managers are long gone by the time the time the project can be judged a success or failure. Safety needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. Public and private responsibility must be rearranged with the roles of each clearly laid out. Finally, government’s “conflicting roles” both as promoters of a particular project and as the “guardian of the taxpayer” has to be separated. This last one is a political minefield; clearly during the pendency of ARC, the various rail advocacy organizations performed this oversight. But since ARC spanned many state administrations, and given that other New Jersey state issues of more importance to the voter took precedence, it literally sank below (almost) every elected leader’s radar like a stealthy submarine that plowed ever onward oblivious to the shoals and sandbars that laid ahead. That is until the summer of 2010 when the media finally awoke from their slumber. That story is well known and we’ll let it stop there. Suffice it to say, New Jersey Governor Christie cancelled the megaproject in late October 2010.

One final postscript: I did raise a question during the Q&A session and asked the Commissioner to use his good offices to obtain the long sought after 1,600 page background document that led to the 2003 publication of the ARC “Major Investment Study” (MIS) “Summary Report” that compared the three final project alternatives. Previously, he had asked me at a November 2010 NJT Board Meeting, after I raised the issue at that time, to submit a New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to state government. This I dutifully did and received a letter from the Office of the Attorney General, dated December 14, 2010, the subject of which was “Re: OPRA Request No. 330 dated December 9, 2010”. At the TRF breakfast, I held up the letter, in fact gave a copy to the Commissioner, as well as held up a copy of the 2003 “Summary Report,” for all to see. I quote the final paragraph from the AG’s letter here without further comment:

“It is our understanding that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “Port Authority”) may have maintained records pertaining to the ARC MIS Summary Report; however, we understand that the Port Authority’s file was destroyed as a result of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.”

To Replace Existing ‘Run-Down’ 800-Car Garage

ConnDOT Seeking Rail Station Parking Proposals

STAMFORD --- “In the coming months, the state will pursue a request for qualifications seeking plans to provide additional commuter parking near the Stamford railroad station, a move which will set the stage to demolish and replace a rundown 800-space garage there,” Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has announced, as reported in The Stamford Advocate recently.

“We’re going to determine the best plan to improve the parking capacity in the station,” Malloy said. “There is a tremendous amount of stuff going on in Stamford and I think we’re looking at a great future.” Malloy announced the state Department of Transportation would seek the proposals during a morning event at the train station alongside U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-4, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn. and Mayor Michael Pavia, who gathered to discuss last week’s announcement of a $10.5 million federal grant for Stamford to extend platforms, construct walkways, and other improvements to double the station’s capacity, the Advocate reported.

Transportation Commissioner Jim Redeker said the request for qualifications process would be issued within the next 60 days and be open to all developers with proposals to supply parking at their existing or planned parking structures. “It will be a process conducted by the Connecticut DOT and won’t be pre-decided,” Redeker said. Malloy said while the proximity of spaces in the garage is a valuable resource to commuters, it is also important to consider the inclusion of office, retail, or other space within a new parking structure at the station if it serves to spur economic activity in the area” the paper’s Martin B. Cassidy reported.

Believe It…

WASHINGTON---”The Surface Transportation Board has made its annual determinations of revenue adequacy for the Nation’s Class I freight railroads (the largest) for 2010. The Board found that one railroad, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, was revenue adequate in 2010. All other Class I freight railroads were found to be revenue inadequate for that year,” the agency announced recently.

The decision is seen as important because of the perennial debate between shippers and the major railroads over rate setting, which used to be the domain of the STB’s predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, but which powers were handed back to the railroads in 1980 with the Staggers Act. That Act essentially de-regulated freight railroads.

“A railroad is considered to be revenue adequate,” the STB said, “under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a), if it achieves a rate of return on net investment equal to at least the current cost of capital for the railroad industry for 2010, which the Board determined to be 11.03%. Congress directed the Board to conduct such revenue adequacy determinations on an annual basis.”

‘TIGER III Will Boost Freight Transportation
But Not Transform It’

SHENZHEN, CHINA - A 102 km (63.5 mile) long high-speed railway linking south China’s boom town of Shenzhen with Guangzhou, the provincial capital of Guangdong, became operational on the 26^th of December 2011

Photo: China Daily News A seat in the VIP of a CRH 3 high-speed train set, which operates on the Shenzhen – Guangzhou route, costs 120 Yuan (US $18.50). The line is expected to be extended to Hong Kong by 2015.

The line is expected to be extended to Hong Kong by 2015, making it an important new option for passengers traveling between Hong Kong and the mainland.

Lu Chunfang, deputy minister of railways, said the Guangzhou-Shenzhen line, built at a cost of 20.4 billion Yuan (US $3.2 billion), is a section of the future Beijing-Hong Kong high-speed railway, which is one of the country’s rail arteries currently under construction. Upon its completion, the trip between Beijing and Shenzhen will be reduced from 23 to 10 hours. A total of 36 pairs of shuttles have been arranged daily on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen line. A single trip takes 35 minutes at a maximum speed of 300 km per hour. Slower trains will also run more frequently.

A one-way first-class ticket costs 100 Yuan ($16.00) and a second-class one, 75 Yuan. The latter fare is 5 Yuan cheaper than a second-class ticket on the slower line.

High-speed service between Guangzhou and Shenzhen will be a convenient choice for some people, especially those living in or traveling close to the five stations and those transferring to other high-speed trains from Guangzhou. The terminals are connected to the subway systems of the two cities.

“I won’t need to travel to Guangzhou East Station to take a train to Shenzhen,” said Wang Yi, who lives in Panyu district in Guangzhou.

Many will still prefer the slower trains, given that their terminals in Guangzhou and Shenzhen are located in the city proper. The terminals of the high-speed trains are situated in less-populated areas of both cities. “To me, it is inconvenient to take a high-speed train between Guangzhou and Shenzhen because it is time-consuming to get to the Guangzhou South Station in the first place and to travel on from the Shenzhen North Station,” said Zhang Lu, who lives in downtown Guangzhou.

However, many expect the high-speed trains to become more attractive when the line extends to Hong Kong in 2015.

High-speed trains will also offer more advanced facilities than ordinary ones, including more comfortable seats, audio and video entertainment and power outlets in the first-class cars. There will also be toilets for the disabled and a baby changing station. A Guangzhou-Shenzhen CRH3 (Siemens Velaro series) high-speed train has 556 seats, including 16 in the VIP rooms, 50 in first class and 50 in the dining / cafe car.

China Unveils 500 km/h Capable
Experimental High-Speed Train

CSR Qingdao Sifang unveiled an ultra high-speed test train back in late December at its main factory. The six-car EMU train-set is intended to give engineers and designers the ability to study train and track behavior at speeds up to 500 km/h (310 mph).

Researchers will explore fields including wheel-rail dynamics, structural reliability, new materials and technologies, comfort, vibration and noise. Other tests will examine safety parameters, current collection / pantograph – catenary interaction, and aerodynamic performance.

Photo: CSR The 500 km/h fast experimental high-speed EMU train set during the official roll-out at Qingdao Sifang train works in China last December.

All vehicles are powered to give a total rating of 22.8 MW (30,000 hp). Local reports suggest that the train features very lightweight structures and materials including carbon-fiber composites, which are coming into increased use in the airline industry, most notably with Boeing’s new B787 “Dreamliner” aircraft, but also in various other newer models such as the A320, A330, A380 and B777. The train has a long, pointed nose said to resemble a traditional Chinese sword.

The train-set was developed with the support of the Ministry of Railways and the Ministry of Science & Technology, with input from the China Academy of Railway Sciences, Beijing Jiaotong University, Southwest Jiaotong University and the Institute of Mechanics, part of the Chinese Academy of Science.

Will Britain’s HS2 High-Speed Rail Corridor
Get Approval?

London – The British government is now expected to approve at least the first phase of High-Speed 2 (HS2), the proposed new high-speed rail corridor between London and several major cities in northern England, in a key announcement on Tuesday (10^th January 2012).

A report from Network Rail has ruled out the alternatives suggested by anti-HS2 campaigners, on the grounds that their ideas would only provide short-term solutions. Those opposed to construction of a domestic High-Speed rail route have continued to claim that the project will be too expensive and cause irreversible damage to the countryside, particularly in the Chilterns.

One anti-HS2 campaigner commented: “We do need improvements to infrastructure, but you can deliver more benefits to more people more quickly for less money by upgrading the existing rail lines. This is simply a much better option than building the fastest, most expensive railway in the world. High-Speed Rail does nothing for the vast majority of rail users, but they will end up having to pay for it and we know the final cost will be well above the £33 billion price tag.”

Image: UK Department of Transport Diagram of suggested HS2 rail corridor alignment in England.

The comment followed the publication of letters supporting the project in several newspapers on Friday, which were signed by more than 100 business leaders and senior transport professionals.

Greengauge21, which has long supported the development of domestic High-Speed rail routes in Britain, said: “The central case that drives the need for HS2 is capacity: every mode of transport between London and the Midlands will soon be operating at capacity, and upgrading existing facilities is not a viable option.”

Network Rail agrees that upgrading existing routes – a major plank of the opposition argument – will not be enough. A spokesman said: “In just over a decade the WCML, Britain’s busiest and most economically vital rail artery, will be full, with no more space to accommodate the predicted growth in demand. Alternative schemes have been put forward which would deliver some short-term capacity benefits, but they would come at a heavy price in terms of disruption to passengers and the economy.”

The HS2 debate is now set to reach a crucial point on Tuesday, when UK transport secretary Justine Greening is expected to make a formal statement setting out the government’s decision.

We Get Letters…

To the editor:

Amtrak would be better off if Congress paid off the stockholders and allowed the corporation to reorganize as a 501(c)3 corporation. Then Amtrak can become more nimble in its operation --- and less beholden to parsimonious congress people --- and have greater flexibility for seeking grants from both public and private sectors. As a nonprofit corporation, the company would not have to operate under the current silly notion as a business but rather business-like.

Sloan Auchincloss
Harrisburg, PA

[We think reader Auchincloss is on to something. More to come… the Editor]

Where is the Fed Money for PTC?

To the editor:

The November 21st article,” The Catch-22 of US Air Travel”, hit a nerve. The FAA (taxpayers) are giving yet another subsidy to the airline industry; $7 Billion ($4.4 billion already allocated) for implementation of Nextgen, an advanced air traffic control system.

So where is the FRA (taxpayer) handout for Positive Train Control, the advanced rail traffic control system being forced on railroads by Congress? The lack of a level playing field for all levels of rail transportation and the lobby groups actively working against us, has always concerned me and I think that it is time for the industry to step up its campaign to promote itself and gain public support. We have a better, more fuel efficient, environmentally friendly way of moving goods and people, we just need the public to recognize the value we provide. Get their support and funding will follow.

Gord McOuat
Rail Transit Consultant

[ Gord McOuat (pronounced: “McHewitt”) is a heritage streetcar and trolley consultant/mechanic based in Toronto, Canada. He tells us: “My clients include transit companies, heritage trolley operations and operating trolley museums in Canada and the US. I am also the Vice-President of Canada’s first and largest operating streetcar museum in Milton, Ontario and have been an active volunteer there for 40 years. Given that the freight rail industry in North America is an integrated network and passenger rail and transit operations share many standards and transit equipment requirements, issues affecting US operations usually affect Canada. PTC is such an issue. I am also a supporter (and user) of Amtrak, not just in the NEC but the entire long distance network.” ]