Commentary by The Overhead Wire • September 2007
The following commentary has been adapted from entries originally posted to The Overhead Wire Weblog on 10 September 2007 and the Daily Kos on 11 September 2007.
The US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued an extremely ominous and potentially retrogressive Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) for the New and Small Starts programs. These programs provide the basic new-starts funding for major fixed-guideway capital projects such as light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit (RRT, or "heavy rail"), and so-called bus rapid transit (BRT).
Rails to roads?
The proposed new rules are alarming on a number of levels. Most notably, they downgrade the importance of land use and economic development despite congressional direction to the contrary, and they propose to redefine the definition of "fixed-guideway" to include transit funding for highway lanes that use tolling schemes – thus diverting rail transit money into roadway (tollway) development.
Why is this important? To some extent, the FTA's proposed new rules would entrench policy positions advocated by notorious motor vehicle zealots and transit critics – folks such as the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Randal O'Toole/Wendell Cox cabal. The proposed rules ignore current transportation law regarding required project justification criteria and add new Federal intervention into the local decision-making process. If finalized, the new rule-making policy will hamper American cities' ability to build new transit lines for the next 5 years!
However, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill moving through congress is an opportunity to formally weigh in and stop or alter the proposed FTA rule. In a recent development, Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby have proposed an amendment to kill the FTA's new rules. Transit advocates may wish to communicate their views on this issue to their own Senators on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, which can be accessed at the Senate Transportation appropriations webpage.
UPDATE: Light Rail Now has been informed that the Dodd-Shelby amendment was passed and has been added to the appropriations bill. However, President George W. Bush is threatening to veto this legislation. It's currently unknown whether there are sufficient votes in the US Senate to override such a veto.
More details on the new rule-making
See full text of the FTA's proposed rule.
This would diminish the ability of cities to get funding from an already crowded grant program. HOT lanes qualify for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ... and we all know there's a lot of funding there. Over 300 New Starts projects – light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit, regional passenger rail ("commuter rail"), bus rapid transit – were authorized by the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill, and the argument by the FTA as to why they have such an intensive scrutiny of proposals is based mainly on the high demand for limited funding. Adding High Occupancy Toll freeway lanes to the list of eligible projects further strains the FTA's ability to fund new transit projects.
2. FTA would make the dreadful (and misnamed) cost-effectiveness index (CEI) the primary factor in deciding the fate of funding for New Starts projects
This "index" is the same measure that is killing top-quality rail projects, such as the Tyson's Corner Metro extension (Washington, DC area) and has killed, or set back, light rail plans in Columbus, Ohio, Raleigh. NC, and elsewhere. Almost every city that is looking to build new transit projects is worried about qualifying under this seriously flawed measure, and now it's being made even stronger. This measure is the reason why Minneapolis's Central Corridor light rail project might not be able to tunnel under the University of Minnesota, and why locally backed expansion of light rail has been turned into less effective BRT projects in some Houston corridors.
3. FTA's rulemaking pushes cheap, not completely dedicated-guideway, bus projects
The irony of the cost-effectiveness index is that, in reality, it fails to capture the full benefits and cost-effectiveness of a project. The index evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a light rail project versus corridor improvements such as bus rapid transit or improved local bus service. What this does is force cities to choose bus rapid transit projects over citizen-backed light rail projects that may have greater community benefits but also a higher initial price tag. Also, the measurements for the Very Small Starts program are set using the Southtown rapid bus project in Kansas City (which runs on city streets), and not rail or fixed-guideway BRT projects such as Los Angeles's Orange Line busway.
4. FTA reduces or ignores the importance of land use and economic development measures
Congress elevated land use and added economic development as project justification criteria in SAFETEA-LU (the current federal transit authorization). The US Department of Transportation (DOT), however, ignores this and has combined them into one measure with a combined weight of 20% in the overall rating process. The FTA states that it is too costly to implement the economic development measure, but the cost and burden to grantees such as cities and transit agencies is not considered when local jurisdictions are required to adopt the FTA's travel demand models, which have many problems and questionable aspects. The fact that they use those models to determine the "cost-effectiveness" rating – which decides who gets funding – is a problem in itself, as this rating index can't address all the benefits of fixed-guideway transit.
Furthermore, FTA argues that it's too difficult to separate land use from economic development, and that the increase in property values associated with proximity to transit is merely a result of improved time savings alone. We're sure many zoning offices and developers would be surprised to have these effects categorized so simplistically.
5. FTA's new policy could lower ratings for cities who are trying to address future rather than current congestion issues
The FTA would like to measure the New Starts program by the benefits to highway users, but ignores the effect of induced demand, which means that, when you build a new transit project, the space from cars that are taken off the road by transit is filled by new cars. The aim of transit opponents – to push money from the transit program into congestion pricing schemes and not-so-rapid bus projects – would result in less useful transit projects in corridors that might have real future need.
What can be done?
Transit advocates and other proponents of improved public transportation might consider contacting their congressmen or senators, to request them to stop the FTA's proposed rule and give the Department of Transportation a clear directive that the FTA must:
1. Comparably weight all 6 project justification criteria (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, land use factors, and other factors – e.g., economic development, environmental justice considerations, livable communities initiatives, etc.), while recognizing the particular importance of transit-supportive land use and economic development in fostering successful and sustainable projects rather than considering just the direct costs of the project.
2. Maintain the current definition of "fixed-guideway transit" – i.e., focused on transit services operating on rails, special guideways, or busways.
3. Desist from raiding the federal transit program for road pricing schemes.
Light Rail Now! website
Here are details on what the FTA's new rules would do:
1. FTA would allow High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes to qualify for New Starts funding
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Capital Metro Rails Rails first commuter rail cars arrive
First commuter rail cars arrive
By News 8 Austin Staff - Oct. 23, 2007
Two of the six rail cars that will make up the commuter rail service Capital MetroRail arrived Monday evening from Switzerland.
By fall 2008, the commuter rail line will run from Leander to downtown Austin, making nine stops along the way.
The 50-minute, 32-mile ride will stop at Plaza Saltillo in East Austin, MLK Boulevard, Highland Mall, North Lamar, Burnet Road at Braker Lane, Howard Lane and then Lakeline Boulevard before hitting Leander in Williamson County.
Each car can hold 200 passengers – 100 seated – and cost just under $6 million. They have high-back seats, bicycle and overhead luggage racks and Wi-Fi connections. The rail cars are considered hybrids because they run on both a gas and electrical engine. Capital Metro spokesperson Adam Shaivitz said they're "quieter than a bus."
But the commuter rail won't run on the same schedule as Cap Metro buses. Right now, they're just planning for peak service during morning and afternoon rush hour. Cars will run every 30 minutes with one midday round trip.
If demand is high, Cap Metro might expand the number of cars, the schedule and add more routes.
Fares have yet to be determined, but it would appear $2 seems to be the popular choice among officials.
Each car must be reassembled and go through 1,000 miles of test runs before they're ready for service next year. The four other cars will arrive by next spring.
Station platforms have already been built, and have bike racks, ticket vending machines and electronic signs announcing the arrival time of the next train.
Read more and see video on News8 Austin
By News 8 Austin Staff - Oct. 23, 2007
Two of the six rail cars that will make up the commuter rail service Capital MetroRail arrived Monday evening from Switzerland.
By fall 2008, the commuter rail line will run from Leander to downtown Austin, making nine stops along the way.
The 50-minute, 32-mile ride will stop at Plaza Saltillo in East Austin, MLK Boulevard, Highland Mall, North Lamar, Burnet Road at Braker Lane, Howard Lane and then Lakeline Boulevard before hitting Leander in Williamson County.
Each car can hold 200 passengers – 100 seated – and cost just under $6 million. They have high-back seats, bicycle and overhead luggage racks and Wi-Fi connections. The rail cars are considered hybrids because they run on both a gas and electrical engine. Capital Metro spokesperson Adam Shaivitz said they're "quieter than a bus."
But the commuter rail won't run on the same schedule as Cap Metro buses. Right now, they're just planning for peak service during morning and afternoon rush hour. Cars will run every 30 minutes with one midday round trip.
If demand is high, Cap Metro might expand the number of cars, the schedule and add more routes.
Fares have yet to be determined, but it would appear $2 seems to be the popular choice among officials.
Each car must be reassembled and go through 1,000 miles of test runs before they're ready for service next year. The four other cars will arrive by next spring.
Station platforms have already been built, and have bike racks, ticket vending machines and electronic signs announcing the arrival time of the next train.
Read more and see video on News8 Austin
Proposed Austin Bergstrom Light Rail plan resurrected
Wynn to resurrect light rail
AUSTIN News 8 Austin Staff - 10/25/2007
Austin Mayor Will Wynn is calling for a November 2008 election to build a Central Austin passenger rail system.
The announcement happened at the Mayor's annual State of Downtown luncheon on Thursday.
"Every peer city that's worth their salt has passenger rail service," he said.
The proposed rail line would connect Austin Bergstrom International Airport, downtown and the University of Texas, along with the Triangle and Mueller developments.
Back in 2000, voters shot down a plan for 52 miles of light rail.
"It took a lot of political courage for him to stick his neck out and make this proposal," Nancy Burns of the Downtown Austin Alliance said.
Under his plan, Wynn said there would not be a need for a new tax to pay for the trains. Instead the system would be paid for and run by a committee of city agencies, developers and private entities. Wynn also hopes the airport, which is doing well financially, can help with the burden.
"It benefits passengers, it benefits employees and I think the airlines and the airport operation will recognize the value," he said.
Wynn wants to assign a task force to come up with the cost, technology and logistics.
Creative financing between public and private entities would avoid a property tax increase.
Wynn hopes the task force can complete its projection in six months so an election can be held in 2008.
This light rail proposal through Central Austin is completely separate from Capital Metro's commuter rail line through Williamson County down to Austin.
Voters approved a commuter rail in 2004 and the trains are set to launch in Fall 2008.
For more information: Light Rail Now is an Austin-based nonprofit that promotes mass transit systems in cities across the globe.
Read more and watch video on News8 Austin
AUSTIN News 8 Austin Staff - 10/25/2007
Austin Mayor Will Wynn is calling for a November 2008 election to build a Central Austin passenger rail system.
The announcement happened at the Mayor's annual State of Downtown luncheon on Thursday.
"Every peer city that's worth their salt has passenger rail service," he said.
The proposed rail line would connect Austin Bergstrom International Airport, downtown and the University of Texas, along with the Triangle and Mueller developments.
Back in 2000, voters shot down a plan for 52 miles of light rail.
"It took a lot of political courage for him to stick his neck out and make this proposal," Nancy Burns of the Downtown Austin Alliance said.
Under his plan, Wynn said there would not be a need for a new tax to pay for the trains. Instead the system would be paid for and run by a committee of city agencies, developers and private entities. Wynn also hopes the airport, which is doing well financially, can help with the burden.
"It benefits passengers, it benefits employees and I think the airlines and the airport operation will recognize the value," he said.
Wynn wants to assign a task force to come up with the cost, technology and logistics.
Creative financing between public and private entities would avoid a property tax increase.
Wynn hopes the task force can complete its projection in six months so an election can be held in 2008.
This light rail proposal through Central Austin is completely separate from Capital Metro's commuter rail line through Williamson County down to Austin.
Voters approved a commuter rail in 2004 and the trains are set to launch in Fall 2008.
For more information: Light Rail Now is an Austin-based nonprofit that promotes mass transit systems in cities across the globe.
Read more and watch video on News8 Austin
Local transit officials optimistic they can win federal funds, put project on fast track
By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram Staff Writer -
Officials with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority are counting on Washington to pay nearly half the proposed $390 million needed to extend a commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Northeast Tarrant County.
But securing federal money for such projects is so arduous, some transit agencies don't even bother applying for it.
Congress sets aside an average of about $1.7 billion a year for so-called new starts, an industry term for new rail or bus services - and 100 urban areas are competing for grants.
The Federal Transit Administration requires applicants to submit thousands of pages of documentation proving their project is justified. Many applicants are initially denied but are encouraged to make changes to their projects and resubmit the paperwork. By the time they are approved, projects are often years behind schedule.
"We're very appreciative of the funding but, boy, it takes a heck of an effort to get that money," said Stephen Salin, assistant vice president of capital planning for Dallas Area Rapid Transit. It took DART eight years to secure $700 million in federal funds for its light-rail line from Pleasant Grove to Farmers Branch, he said.
The T's project would connect southwest and downtown Fort Worth, Texas Christian University, the Stockyards, Grapevine and Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Some say getting the train up and running by 2012, the informal target date, will take a near-miracle.
"My belief is we will not be denied," said Dick Ruddell, president of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. "We have a good enough project because of the location and ridership projections. This is going to be viewed as very doable."
The ever-optimistic Ruddell says the T's proposal has several advantages that may speed up the funding.
nThe T wants about $175 million, far less than requests typically made by larger agencies such as DART. Local sources would provide an additional $215 million, including money already spent on two federal documents: an analysis of alternatives that was completed last year, and an ongoing environmental review.
The broad community support, as evidenced by Grapevine's successful 2006 sales tax referendum.
Trains would run on existing tracks owned by four railroad companies,
so few rights of way would need to be bought.
Denton gives up
Yet T officials need look no farther than one county to the north to
find an example of how similar projects have found federal funding
frustration.
In March, the Denton County Transportation Authority dropped its pursuit of federal funding for a commuter line from Denton to Carrollton. Denton County transit officials say they could eventually have proved that their proposed rail line, roughly parallel to Interstate 35E, was cost-effective. But it would probably have added years to the planning, and they didn't want to miss their self-imposed 2010 deadline to connect their trains with DART rail service in
Carrollton.
So the transit agency found other financial sources, including proceeds from the new Texas 121 toll road through Lewisville.
The project is still on schedule.
"We've been able to get down to the business of building a railroad rather than shuffle papers," said John Hedrick, president of the Denton County agency.
Transit officials in Raleigh, N.C., recently abandoned 11 years of planning for a Triangle Transit rail line connecting sprawling population and employment areas.
Why so complicated?
Many rail lines simply don't meet the Federal Transit Administration's definition of a cost-effective project.
The agency places a dollar value on the time commuters waste sitting in traffic jams in the proposal area. To come up with the value of adding rail or buses, the agency uses a complicated model that includes factors such as the cost of a project, the number of riders expected in a peak year (usually 2025 or 2030), and congestion data from buses and highways in the same area.
Even in cities the size of Dallas, proving a project's worthiness can be tough. DART's $700 million light-rail line, approved last year, didn't exactly pass with flying colors. It managed a slightly better than mediocre score, even though it is expected to have a whopping 40,300 riders a day by 2025.
The bureaucratic hurdles are necessary to ensure that rail projects are selected based upon scientific data rather than politics, federal officials say.
What if the T fails?
If the proposed Tarrant County rail line can't meet the federal agency's criteria, the T won't give up, Ruddell said. Instead, it will work closely with the agency to cut costs, find more ways to try to increase ridership and make any other changes. The worst case would be a delay of several years, he said.
Ruddell also said the rail line could be built in phases with local funds. Perhaps, he said, the first phase could serve central Fort Worth and Grapevine.
But he says he knows a cost-effective rail project when he sees it - and this one is it. Through most of the '90s, he was government affairs chairman for the American Public Transportation Association and helped draft legislation to grade rail projects.
"The federal government has clearly made it difficult to gain access to this money," Ruddell said.
"But we have incredible support from every part of the community. I've got local funding lined up. There's nothing to hold us back, except the process itself."
This week, the Star-Telegram is focusing on neighborhoods that might get a train station along the proposed commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Northeast Tarrant County. Each day this week, part of the route will be featured on the Main Street page inside the newspaper's local section - starting Monday with a glance at the commuter rail plan near Sycamore School Road.
Train technology
The Fort Worth Transportation Authority wants to use a new breed of rail cars known as diesel multiple units. They are self-propelled, so they have no locomotive. They burn diesel fuel and offer riders the interior comfort of light-rail service.
When will it begin?
The rail line could open by 2012 if the ongoing environmental review goes smoothly and the federal government agrees to chip in $175 million in funding. An additional $215 million in local funds has been identified. Agreements must also be reached with up to four railroads whose tracks would be needed for passenger service.
The schedule
The roughly 40-mile line would serve 13 or 14 stations, depending on which of three routes is chosen. During morning and afternoon rush periods, about three trains per hour would operate on the line. The rest of the day, about one train per hour would operate. Some stations would be neighborhood-oriented, and others would be regional
park-and-ride lots. Each would have a platform, windscreens, canopies, walkways, wheelchair accessibility, ticketing, and bus and car drop-off areas.
Paying for the project
How the T proposes to pay for the $390 million Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor:
$70 million, local sales tax - $30 million from the T, and $40 million from Grapevine.
$60 million Texas Mobility Fund, state appropriation.
$20 million, Tarrant County bonds, part of voter-approved transportation package..
$55 million, North Central Texas Council of Governments - Partnership II congestion mitigation and other funds.
$10 million, other local funding.
$175 million, Federal Transit Administration grant.
Source: Fort Worth Transportation Authority
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Officials with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority are counting on Washington to pay nearly half the proposed $390 million needed to extend a commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Northeast Tarrant County.
But securing federal money for such projects is so arduous, some transit agencies don't even bother applying for it.
Congress sets aside an average of about $1.7 billion a year for so-called new starts, an industry term for new rail or bus services - and 100 urban areas are competing for grants.
The Federal Transit Administration requires applicants to submit thousands of pages of documentation proving their project is justified. Many applicants are initially denied but are encouraged to make changes to their projects and resubmit the paperwork. By the time they are approved, projects are often years behind schedule.
"We're very appreciative of the funding but, boy, it takes a heck of an effort to get that money," said Stephen Salin, assistant vice president of capital planning for Dallas Area Rapid Transit. It took DART eight years to secure $700 million in federal funds for its light-rail line from Pleasant Grove to Farmers Branch, he said.
The T's project would connect southwest and downtown Fort Worth, Texas Christian University, the Stockyards, Grapevine and Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Some say getting the train up and running by 2012, the informal target date, will take a near-miracle.
"My belief is we will not be denied," said Dick Ruddell, president of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. "We have a good enough project because of the location and ridership projections. This is going to be viewed as very doable."
The ever-optimistic Ruddell says the T's proposal has several advantages that may speed up the funding.
nThe T wants about $175 million, far less than requests typically made by larger agencies such as DART. Local sources would provide an additional $215 million, including money already spent on two federal documents: an analysis of alternatives that was completed last year, and an ongoing environmental review.
The broad community support, as evidenced by Grapevine's successful 2006 sales tax referendum.
Trains would run on existing tracks owned by four railroad companies,
so few rights of way would need to be bought.
Denton gives up
Yet T officials need look no farther than one county to the north to
find an example of how similar projects have found federal funding
frustration.
In March, the Denton County Transportation Authority dropped its pursuit of federal funding for a commuter line from Denton to Carrollton. Denton County transit officials say they could eventually have proved that their proposed rail line, roughly parallel to Interstate 35E, was cost-effective. But it would probably have added years to the planning, and they didn't want to miss their self-imposed 2010 deadline to connect their trains with DART rail service in
Carrollton.
So the transit agency found other financial sources, including proceeds from the new Texas 121 toll road through Lewisville.
The project is still on schedule.
"We've been able to get down to the business of building a railroad rather than shuffle papers," said John Hedrick, president of the Denton County agency.
Transit officials in Raleigh, N.C., recently abandoned 11 years of planning for a Triangle Transit rail line connecting sprawling population and employment areas.
Why so complicated?
Many rail lines simply don't meet the Federal Transit Administration's definition of a cost-effective project.
The agency places a dollar value on the time commuters waste sitting in traffic jams in the proposal area. To come up with the value of adding rail or buses, the agency uses a complicated model that includes factors such as the cost of a project, the number of riders expected in a peak year (usually 2025 or 2030), and congestion data from buses and highways in the same area.
Even in cities the size of Dallas, proving a project's worthiness can be tough. DART's $700 million light-rail line, approved last year, didn't exactly pass with flying colors. It managed a slightly better than mediocre score, even though it is expected to have a whopping 40,300 riders a day by 2025.
The bureaucratic hurdles are necessary to ensure that rail projects are selected based upon scientific data rather than politics, federal officials say.
What if the T fails?
If the proposed Tarrant County rail line can't meet the federal agency's criteria, the T won't give up, Ruddell said. Instead, it will work closely with the agency to cut costs, find more ways to try to increase ridership and make any other changes. The worst case would be a delay of several years, he said.
Ruddell also said the rail line could be built in phases with local funds. Perhaps, he said, the first phase could serve central Fort Worth and Grapevine.
But he says he knows a cost-effective rail project when he sees it - and this one is it. Through most of the '90s, he was government affairs chairman for the American Public Transportation Association and helped draft legislation to grade rail projects.
"The federal government has clearly made it difficult to gain access to this money," Ruddell said.
"But we have incredible support from every part of the community. I've got local funding lined up. There's nothing to hold us back, except the process itself."
This week, the Star-Telegram is focusing on neighborhoods that might get a train station along the proposed commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Northeast Tarrant County. Each day this week, part of the route will be featured on the Main Street page inside the newspaper's local section - starting Monday with a glance at the commuter rail plan near Sycamore School Road.
Train technology
The Fort Worth Transportation Authority wants to use a new breed of rail cars known as diesel multiple units. They are self-propelled, so they have no locomotive. They burn diesel fuel and offer riders the interior comfort of light-rail service.
When will it begin?
The rail line could open by 2012 if the ongoing environmental review goes smoothly and the federal government agrees to chip in $175 million in funding. An additional $215 million in local funds has been identified. Agreements must also be reached with up to four railroads whose tracks would be needed for passenger service.
The schedule
The roughly 40-mile line would serve 13 or 14 stations, depending on which of three routes is chosen. During morning and afternoon rush periods, about three trains per hour would operate on the line. The rest of the day, about one train per hour would operate. Some stations would be neighborhood-oriented, and others would be regional
park-and-ride lots. Each would have a platform, windscreens, canopies, walkways, wheelchair accessibility, ticketing, and bus and car drop-off areas.
Paying for the project
How the T proposes to pay for the $390 million Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor:
$70 million, local sales tax - $30 million from the T, and $40 million from Grapevine.
$60 million Texas Mobility Fund, state appropriation.
$20 million, Tarrant County bonds, part of voter-approved transportation package..
$55 million, North Central Texas Council of Governments - Partnership II congestion mitigation and other funds.
$10 million, other local funding.
$175 million, Federal Transit Administration grant.
Source: Fort Worth Transportation Authority
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Texas Rail Advocates board meeting scheduled in Dallas Nov. 12th
By Texas Rail Advocates - Oct. 2007
2008 Corridor Conference to be held February 1st
The 2008 South Central High Performance Rail Corridor Conference will be held on February 1st! Mark your calendars and check out our Corridor Conference web page for more info.
Map of South Central High Performance Rail Corridor for passenger and frieght service.
The next TRA Board Meeting will be held on Monday, November 12th, a Lincoln Center #1 (by the Hilton), 5400 LBJ Frwy, Suite 1300, Dallas, TX 75240 (if you get lost, phone Taylor Sharpe's cell phone at 214-522-5525).
Friends and members are welcome to attend. Call Paul Mangelsdorf for more information at (214) 823-4963. The last meeting was held Oct. 1st. Minutes are available for the Sept. 17th meeting.
2008 Corridor Conference to be held February 1st
The 2008 South Central High Performance Rail Corridor Conference will be held on February 1st! Mark your calendars and check out our Corridor Conference web page for more info.
Map of South Central High Performance Rail Corridor for passenger and frieght service.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Passenger rail privatization: A lesson from Japan
By Robert A. Letteney - TheHill.com - April 07, 2005
The Hill is a congressional newspaper that publishes daily when Congress is in session, with a special focus on business and lobbying, political campaigns ...
Even though passenger rail is supported by national governments in the rest of the world, the Bush administration has recently proposed shutting down U.S. intercity passenger rail service by zeroing out funding for Amtrak in fiscal year 2006.
The Bush budget proposal comes during a fierce debate over how to reform the U.S. passenger-rail system. Some proponents of privatizing Amtrak have pointed to privatization efforts in other countries, including Japan, as proof that Amtrak could also be privatized. Are there lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from the Japanese experience with privatization?
In the mid 1980s, Japan National Railways (JNR) was a monolithic national monopoly with an operating deficit, huge debt, declining ridership, high fares, poor service and political interference. In other words, JNR had many of the same problems that plague Amtrak today.
In its place, the Japanese government created six separate private passenger-rail companies to serve different regions of the country. Three of the six companies that served rural areas would be eligible for a yearly operating-deficit subsidy from a revolving government fund. The other three companies, which largely served urban areas, were expected to cover their operating costs. Each private company would be responsible for both rail operations and infrastructure management.
By most measures, privatization in Japan has been a success. Since privatization, yearly profits for the three main companies have increased to between $600 million and $2 billion, accidents have decreased by close to 50 percent, fares are stable, the number of rail employees has been reduced by 50,000 and ridership as measured by passenger-kilometers has risen by nearly 20 percent.
However, any discussion of Japan’s privatization efforts must also note the Japanese government’s role in financing rail infrastructure projects and the operating deficits of rural railroads.
While the Bush administration’s proposal would effectively destroy passenger rail in the United States, the Japanese government has launched an ambitious effort to expand high-speed rail service over the next 10 years. The cost, close to $30 billion, will be funded by the national government, local governments and revenues generated from existing high-speed lines. When construction is complete, the new lines will be owned by the government and leased to the rail companies. The same private rail company that manages operations will also manage maintenance for the new high-speed lines.
Obviously, there are limitations in comparing the U.S. and Japan rail systems. Japan is especially well-suited for rail because of its high population density and short distances between major cities. Furthermore, in the current budgetary climate it is impractical to believe that the United States could build the type of dedicated high-speed rail network in its high-density corridors that Japan possesses.
Yet the main difference between the Japan and U.S. rail systems is political. The United States has never had the political will to make the necessary infrastructure investments to create a competitive rail system. Instead, from the time Amtrak was created in 1971, Congress has given the struggling railroad barely enough to survive from year to year.
As a result, Amtrak does not have enough money to fix its growing backlog of capital maintenance or promote a true high-speed rail system. In the Northeast Corridor alone, it is estimated that $28 billion is needed for rail infrastructure over the next 20 years, and billions more would be needed to implement higher speed rail.
As U.S. highways and airspace become more and more congested, the lack of investment in rail infrastructure has made it difficult for passenger rail to compete successfully with these other transportation modes (all of which receive much more federal subsidy).
By contrast, Japan has consistently poured billions of dollars into its rail infrastructure (even after privatization) and has created a competitive transportation alternative to plane and automobile travel.
The lesson from Japan is obvious: Intercity rail systems, whether private or public, need stable sources of public investment to be successful. Unfortunately, this simple fact is often ignored by advocates of privatization in the United States.
The administration’s legislation to privatize Amtrak does not guarantee any specific amount of federal funding for rail infrastructure. Without a specific dollar amount of stable, guaranteed funding, promises from the administration to rebuild the nation’s rail infrastructure ring hollow. An empty federal financial commitment in the name of “flexibility” for the states is a recipe for disaster.
As Japan has shown, successful passenger rail systems need more government investment, not less.
Letteney was legislative director for Rep. John W. Olver (D-Mass.) and currently works in the Japanese Parliament and Ministry of Transport as a Mike Mansfield Fellow.
Read more
The Hill is a congressional newspaper that publishes daily when Congress is in session, with a special focus on business and lobbying, political campaigns ...
Even though passenger rail is supported by national governments in the rest of the world, the Bush administration has recently proposed shutting down U.S. intercity passenger rail service by zeroing out funding for Amtrak in fiscal year 2006.
The Bush budget proposal comes during a fierce debate over how to reform the U.S. passenger-rail system. Some proponents of privatizing Amtrak have pointed to privatization efforts in other countries, including Japan, as proof that Amtrak could also be privatized. Are there lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from the Japanese experience with privatization?
In the mid 1980s, Japan National Railways (JNR) was a monolithic national monopoly with an operating deficit, huge debt, declining ridership, high fares, poor service and political interference. In other words, JNR had many of the same problems that plague Amtrak today.
In its place, the Japanese government created six separate private passenger-rail companies to serve different regions of the country. Three of the six companies that served rural areas would be eligible for a yearly operating-deficit subsidy from a revolving government fund. The other three companies, which largely served urban areas, were expected to cover their operating costs. Each private company would be responsible for both rail operations and infrastructure management.
By most measures, privatization in Japan has been a success. Since privatization, yearly profits for the three main companies have increased to between $600 million and $2 billion, accidents have decreased by close to 50 percent, fares are stable, the number of rail employees has been reduced by 50,000 and ridership as measured by passenger-kilometers has risen by nearly 20 percent.
However, any discussion of Japan’s privatization efforts must also note the Japanese government’s role in financing rail infrastructure projects and the operating deficits of rural railroads.
While the Bush administration’s proposal would effectively destroy passenger rail in the United States, the Japanese government has launched an ambitious effort to expand high-speed rail service over the next 10 years. The cost, close to $30 billion, will be funded by the national government, local governments and revenues generated from existing high-speed lines. When construction is complete, the new lines will be owned by the government and leased to the rail companies. The same private rail company that manages operations will also manage maintenance for the new high-speed lines.
Obviously, there are limitations in comparing the U.S. and Japan rail systems. Japan is especially well-suited for rail because of its high population density and short distances between major cities. Furthermore, in the current budgetary climate it is impractical to believe that the United States could build the type of dedicated high-speed rail network in its high-density corridors that Japan possesses.
Yet the main difference between the Japan and U.S. rail systems is political. The United States has never had the political will to make the necessary infrastructure investments to create a competitive rail system. Instead, from the time Amtrak was created in 1971, Congress has given the struggling railroad barely enough to survive from year to year.
As a result, Amtrak does not have enough money to fix its growing backlog of capital maintenance or promote a true high-speed rail system. In the Northeast Corridor alone, it is estimated that $28 billion is needed for rail infrastructure over the next 20 years, and billions more would be needed to implement higher speed rail.
As U.S. highways and airspace become more and more congested, the lack of investment in rail infrastructure has made it difficult for passenger rail to compete successfully with these other transportation modes (all of which receive much more federal subsidy).
By contrast, Japan has consistently poured billions of dollars into its rail infrastructure (even after privatization) and has created a competitive transportation alternative to plane and automobile travel.
The lesson from Japan is obvious: Intercity rail systems, whether private or public, need stable sources of public investment to be successful. Unfortunately, this simple fact is often ignored by advocates of privatization in the United States.
The administration’s legislation to privatize Amtrak does not guarantee any specific amount of federal funding for rail infrastructure. Without a specific dollar amount of stable, guaranteed funding, promises from the administration to rebuild the nation’s rail infrastructure ring hollow. An empty federal financial commitment in the name of “flexibility” for the states is a recipe for disaster.
As Japan has shown, successful passenger rail systems need more government investment, not less.
Letteney was legislative director for Rep. John W. Olver (D-Mass.) and currently works in the Japanese Parliament and Ministry of Transport as a Mike Mansfield Fellow.
Read more
Friday, October 19, 2007
Fort Worth T grants gas drilling rights - Transportation authority agrees to take bids from drilling firms
By By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram staff writer - Oct. 19, 2007
FORT WORTH -- The Fort Worth Transportation Authority agreed Thursday to seek bids from companies that want to drill for natural gas on or near T property, including bus and rail parking lots, the East Fort Worth transfer center and the T headquarters on East Lancaster Avenue.
Trinity Railway Express drilling rights were leased in 2006. Several companies have since approached the T about permission to drill nearby.
In other action, the T board:
Agreed to a new contract with Yellow Checker Shuttle to run the Airporter bus service from downtown Fort Worth to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport for up to five more years. The company has operated the service since 2002.
Yellow Checker will operate under a one-year contract, with four one-year renewal options. The company will pay the T $1,200 a year for use of the Airporter Park & Ride lot at 1000 Weatherford St.
Also, Super Shuttle will continue to run the Route 30 circulator bus service from the Trinity Railway Express' Centreport/DFW Airport Station to area employers.
That agreement also is a one-year contract with four one-year options. Super Shuttle has performed that service since '02.
Welcomed two new board members: Gary Cumbie, special assistant to the Tarrant County College chancellor, was appointed to the T board by Fort Worth Councilman Danny Scarth and replaces Paul Geisel; Rosa Navejar, president of the Fort Worth Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, was appointed by Fort Worth Councilman Sal Espino and replaces Ed Canas.
Agreed to help Burleson, Cleburne, Crowley and Joshua conduct a rail study.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
FORT WORTH -- The Fort Worth Transportation Authority agreed Thursday to seek bids from companies that want to drill for natural gas on or near T property, including bus and rail parking lots, the East Fort Worth transfer center and the T headquarters on East Lancaster Avenue.
Trinity Railway Express drilling rights were leased in 2006. Several companies have since approached the T about permission to drill nearby.
In other action, the T board:
Agreed to a new contract with Yellow Checker Shuttle to run the Airporter bus service from downtown Fort Worth to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport for up to five more years. The company has operated the service since 2002.
Yellow Checker will operate under a one-year contract, with four one-year renewal options. The company will pay the T $1,200 a year for use of the Airporter Park & Ride lot at 1000 Weatherford St.
Also, Super Shuttle will continue to run the Route 30 circulator bus service from the Trinity Railway Express' Centreport/DFW Airport Station to area employers.
That agreement also is a one-year contract with four one-year options. Super Shuttle has performed that service since '02.
Welcomed two new board members: Gary Cumbie, special assistant to the Tarrant County College chancellor, was appointed to the T board by Fort Worth Councilman Danny Scarth and replaces Paul Geisel; Rosa Navejar, president of the Fort Worth Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, was appointed by Fort Worth Councilman Sal Espino and replaces Ed Canas.
Agreed to help Burleson, Cleburne, Crowley and Joshua conduct a rail study.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
