Archive for September, 2009

Rail Implementation

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

Be careful what you wish for is probably a saying being bandied about all over Washington, D.C., these days. The Federal Railroad Administration knows this one for a fact as it tries to sift through the first round of applications for its $8 billion pot of gold with the October 2nd second-round deadline looming.

This last week America 2050 released a paper assessing, “which potential high-speed rail corridors will have the greatest ridership demand,” based on certain criteria it believes are most appropriate. The paper is a good read and I highly recommend you go check it out. When you’re done, pull out your handy “Vision for High-Speed Rail in America” map (mine is taped up next to my monitor) and do some quick comparisons.

While the president’s vision doesn’t go into detail as much as the America 2050 paper does, you can see a lot of the same corridors match up. And really, they should.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, rail opponents are looking at it the wrong way. While the United States is vast in size, it is still comparable to Europe on the state level. And looking at the America 2050 paper you can more easily see how our nation is a big country that can easily be broken down into a handful of regions. These regions contain the vast majority of our populace and they are ideal for high-speed rail.

I travel a lot as the editor of Mass Transit magazine. Do I want to take a train to San Diego (well, yes, but that’s besides the point)?  No. It makes much more sense to fly there. But I’ve been to Chicago about four times in the last few weeks. I have to drive an hour to catch a train for another hour to get there. That shouldn’t be the case. I should be able to take the train to not only Chicago, but the Twin Cities, St. Louis, Detroit and Indianapolis among others.

Think about people living in your region of the United States. I have friends who live in San Diego. Guess what? They don’t travel to the Midwest that often, but they do travel all over California — and they drive most of the time. How about people who live in Texas. It just seems wrong not to have rail lines connecting Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth and points in between. And a great majority of the people living there are never going to Seattle.

We need to get the idea of a nationwide rail system out of our system and do away with misguided and, frankly, outdated comparisons between current high-speed rail plans and Amtrak. The plans on the table are regional in nature and based around our major population centers. Much in the same way France and Spain (to name just two) are enjoying the benefits of high-speed rail implementation, so should those living in the West, Midwest, South and East.

Once we start looking at ourselves in that manner that whole “not in my backyard” idea of commuter rail goes out the window and becomes why haven’t we done this before now.

Be sure and check out our latest issue saluting Mass Transit’s 2009 Top 40 Under 40 class. Congratulations to everyone involved!

And while you’re there, take the time to answer our You Decide! poll. You can’t miss the red, white and blue log on our home page. I’m a firm believer in listening to our readers and for 2010 we’re throwing it to you to let us know who you think should be on our cover. We’ve narrowed down our picks to 12 agencies in the United States and Canada we think have some interesting stuff going on. Now it’s up to you to decide who rises to the top.

Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Check out our LinkedIn page!

Feeling Safe

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit editor

I went to BusCon this week and got to see some of the latest designs on the showroom floor. As always, the show was well-attended and most people I spoke with seemed upbeat about the industry. Comparisons between smaller vehicles (cutaways and the like) and full-size buses sparked a conversation about driver safety and the placement of barriers. That got me to thinking, how much is feeling safe worth?

Then I sat down yesterday morning to post the latest transit news on our Web site and I came across this story in the Washington Post. “Larcenies Fuel Rise in Transit-Related Crime” sure sounds like a dire situation for Washington Metro. However, as I started reading the story I realized it wasn’t necessarily about a surge in transit crimes, but how an increase can be misinterpreted.

According to the article, there were no transit-related rapes, homicides or burglaries last year. The numbers of aggravated assaults and transit-related robberies also dropped. Of course, the total “transit-related crimes” increased.

Why? Because the number of thefts reported increased. And if someone breaks into your car when it’s sitting at a park-and-ride, it’s a “transit-related crime” even though it could have happened anywhere.

I would say that transit being “unsafe” probably rates up there with it being “too expensive” and “dirty” as the general rule of thumb why people don’t take transit. And just like those two other myths, this one is in a word, busted.

As it states in the Post article, the public perceives a greater likelihood of crime on public transit than actually occurs. In this case, perception doesn’t equate to reality. For Washington Metro, transit is safe and its riders know that.

So this brings back the point about how much is feeling safe worth. Transit agencies spend millions (even billions) of dollars a year protecting systems and riders. And for those who use the system, seeing is believing. Transit riderships across the nation continue to rise despite it being “unsafe.”

Transit agencies can only do so much to protect riders. If you leave your iPhone sitting on your front seat all day, you have a better-than-average chance of it getting stolen. And the same goes for any number of other things people leave in their cars. But this isn’t the agency’s fault. And no matter how you try to educate people or create rules to prevent things like this from occurring you can’t stop it altogether.

You can’t legislate common sense.

In the end transit is doing the best thing possible it can do to make people feel safe on systems, it’s making them safe. And being safe is the best way to make people feel safe.

One last thing. I ran into Complete Coach Works’ Macy Neshati at BusCon and he told me that Long Beach Transit’s former executive director of maintenance, Jim Ditch, is nearing the end of his battle with cancer. Macy asked if I would share his thoughts on Jim and spread the word to Jim’s friends in the transit industry. If you get the chance, take a look and add a comment or memory to Macy’s blog.

Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Check out our LinkedIn page!

Premier Service

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

Have you ever flown first class? I have once or twice and it’s pretty nice. Is it worth the price? Not really, but if you can swing it at a discount it really is worth it. What about in transit? Is a “premier service” worth it?

Now before everyone goes all anti-elitist on me, I’m not advocating a confusing mix of tiered pricing or anything on that level. What I’m wondering is in this time of a shortage of operating capital with an overabundance of ridership whether offering a few perks would be worth it.

Take the new Dubai rail line for example. Rides start at 50 cents, but for $3.55 riders can sit in the “gold class” section in the front which features leather seats. This isn’t unheard of. Amtrak and its equivalent in other countries already offer premium sections for riders willing to pay a little extra.

How about the rest of transit? Offer a “quiet car” on your rail or light rail line only for those willing to pay more? What about charging a little more for those vehicles right near the front of the train?

Airlines also have special boarding procedures. Now typically, I hate these. The guy with the 12-year-old kid who tries to play it off so they can get on first is a particular trick I’ve seen pulled. What about a transit system having premium boarding at the back of buses or trains? Only those with monthly passes can board in the rear? It wouldn’t cost more, but it would encourage monthly passes.

Sure, it seems at times the airlines are trying to nickel and dime us to death with charges on everything that used to be free, but perhaps transit agencies can learn a thing or two from them and other agencies already using these “premium services.” I for one would consider paying a little on an overcrowded train if I had a long trip and it meant I could get a seat.

Of course, you can’t go hog wild with this sort of thing or it begins to be more of a detriment than a benefit. It’s a delicate balance between offering a premium and trying to get whatever you can from your riders.

Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Check out our LinkedIn page!

Financing Transportation & Infrastructure Projects in Difficult Times

Friday, September 4th, 2009

By Al Maloof, Ph.D.

During the last 25 years the U.S. Transportation industry has seen a drastic change with respect to the financing of infrastructure and transportation projects. Today, during these difficult times, operators are forced more than ever to explore and identify alternative feasible approaches to financing critical infrastructure and transportation projects that were not often previously considered in the United States.

Some very effective alternative funding and development models to consider as options to traditional procurement methods are long-term concessions, public private partnerships (PPP) and private financing and operation. These include variations in modeling that could be proposed as partnering, outsourcing or full privatization. Due to the current economic climate, such partnerships appear to be a clear solution to the shortage of capital stakeholders and owners of assets are encountering throughout the United States, and specifically in several active key states, which are emerging as innovative frontrunners of alternative project finance, delivery and operation methods.

Long-term concessions also have become frequent alternatives to funding transportation and infrastructure projects.  With a private entity assuming financial, operational and management responsibilities, concession projects can provide a sense of security to a public owner.  In January of 2005, the city of Chicago completed the Skyway project, a 7.8-mile toll road, which connects the Indiana Toll road with the Dan Ryan Expressway on the south side of Chicago. Following a competitive and complicated bidding process, the city awarded its contract to two foreign investors: the Spanish toll developer, Cintra and Australian toll operator, Macquarie. This concession agreement permitted the private entity to operate and maintain the toll road for a 99 year term.  In exchange, the city received 1.8 billion dollars for the lease, some of which was used to pay off city transportation debts that had been accruing for a number of years.  Some of the funds were later used to supplement neglected city projects and provided much needed relief to the local citizens.  As a result of the economic risk involved in the project, the concessionaire made it a point to make efficient and wiser investment decisions than say a traditional vendor would.

There is always a sense of ownership involved in the kind of investment, which allows a private entity to seek the long-term profit opportunities and not just a quick build to completion and exit strategy. This long-term concession agreement would be the first of its kind in the country to be established on a toll that was already operating, putting the city of Chicago into the mix as one of the pioneers for alternative methods of project funding.

Throughout the past few years in particular, it is no wonder public private partnerships projects have increased significantly. Public private partnership projects not only provide the needed funds for new projects, but also develop innovative financing and construction methods, which have a positive influence on project management. According to the United States Department of Transportation, private public partnership ventures can result in crucial cost savings, significantly quicker project completion, and they allow the private investor to apply revolutionary ideas and innovative decision making. Inasmuch as there is a substantial financial risk involved with every new project, it is naturally incumbent upon private entities to guarantee commitment and dedication; this almost always ultimately results in better management and stronger customer service for all of the parties.

In recent years, the state of Florida has made significant efforts to establish itself as one of the leaders of alternative project funding: one of its most ambitious efforts involves the Port of Miami Tunnel. This 30-year toll collection concession, will seek to connect the Port of Miami and the mainland, and decongest one of Miami’s oldest and busiest arterial roadways known as US Highway 1.  With a projected cost of more than 1.5 billion dollars, this would be one of the most expensive transportation and infrastructure projects in the history of South Florida and Miami-Dade County.  The project is still in its procurement stages, but is set to move forward in late 2009. Another progressive project is the planned Florida Marlins Stadium, with a series of new roadway configurations and several parking garages and mixed-use complexes planned.

Additional projects include Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) I-595 corridor improvements and the Alligator Alley Sawgrass Expressway expansion and tolls retrofit outsourcing initiatives. The I-595 procurement already has been awarded and will provide for variable toll road express lanes that include an availability payments program. This is essentially structured to provide compensation to contractors after segments of the road are completed and operating. The Sawgrass toll road project will be re-procured in late 2009 or early 2010. With these and other projects, Florida has assumed the position of being one of the leaders of innovative design, development, construction and operation of these projects, and there is more to come.

Perhaps the most difficult approach to alternative funding solutions is the privatization of transportation projects.  There is a certain degree of skepticism among private corporations and government agencies when considering privatizing public goods and services. Also, labor unions emerge as major stakeholders in these efforts. It has long been thought that privatization means job loss, however that is not always the case. Many private operators are taking on those employers when a conversion is proposed. With the governments’ support of new regulations, private investors are increasingly rising to the challenge to provide vigorous platforms to compete for the business.  The ideology that transportation services should be managed by the government or state is a thing of the past. The private sector now possesses the required knowledge, skills and ability necessary to finance, develop, manage and operate government projects.

Difficult times require different strategies, and innovative ideas that include  long-term concessions, public private partnerships and privatization can provide the much needed alternative solutions to the ever-growing necessity of long past due transportation and infrastructure improvement and development. With solid investors and legislative and policy support, our transportation systems can now look forward to a bright and busy future. This future will be one that will no longer endure the lack of infrastructure and transportation advancements the citizens so well deserve, and free the American people to acquire the infrastructure required to achieve and maintain quality of life. Florida will be one of the most active states in the country for modifying, rebuilding or constructing new infrastructure and transportation projects.  There is certain to be much more to come.

Al Maloof, Ph.D. is managing director at GJB Consulting LLC (GJB), an affiliate of the Genovese, Joblove & Battista, PA law firm. He maintains offices in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., He has worked in and around transportation for more than 20 years, and assisted Florida’s governor in the restructuring of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and currently serves on the board of directors of the Miami Dade Expressway Authority (MDX).  He also holds the position of vice chair of advocay (local, state and federal government relations) with the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce (GMCC). His firm specializes in procurement, bids, RFP’s of transportation, public works and infrastructure projects. He specializes in strategy to pursue new projects and programs, and in developing business opportunities between the public & private sector. Al Maloof, Ph.D. can be contacted at AL.MALOOF@GJB-LAW.COM

Transit Stinks

Friday, September 4th, 2009

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

If it’s not listening to people complain about how transit is inefficient and wasteful, I get to hear from people how it is smelly and dangerous. You know what I mean, “that element” that is on every transit bus. The one nobody wants to talk about — the smelly ones.

The USA Today reports the Honolulu city council is considering a bill to make it illegal for transit users to “bring onto transit property odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system, whether such odors arise from one’s person, clothes, articles, accompanying animal or any other source.”

Well, there goes the Mr. or Mrs. Stinky bit from the Customer Service Challenge at next year’s APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference.

Seriously, everyone who has ridden transit for any length of time has come across someone or something that just doesn’t smell right while you’re riding the bus or train. It’s such a prevalent issue that it’s become woven into the fabric of transit mythology — transit stinks.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is stepping up to fight the bill saying, “Vague laws — like the proposed ‘odor’ ban — open the door to discriminatory enforcement based on an officer’s individual prejudices.”

They are right. The bill being too vague is probably why it didn’t pass the first time when it was decried as an anti-homeless effort. But I’ve got to wonder just how specific the ACLU thinks the bill needs to be. If no one will sit within two seats of you, are you too stinky to ride?

I’ve got to argue the idea of enforcement based on an officer’s “individual prejudices,” though. That statement alone is too vague. We trust the judgment of law enforcement on any number of things, including when they think it is appropriate to use a firearm. I think letting an officer decide if someone is too smelly to be on a bus would be an easy situation to solve.

Could there be discrimination based on this bill? Sure. Will there be? Possibly. But if it happens, then you deal with it in the proper manner. There are laws to protect against that.

As it is now bus drivers (and I guess train conductors) are solely responsible for dealing with a smelly situation — as if they don’t already have enough to deal with. Doesn’t giving them a little bit of back up with the ability to stop a rider before they board if they emit a pungent odor because of a rule on the books seem like a good idea?

It’s interesting. When funding is brought up the argument is transit needs to be more like a real business. Doesn’t a real business have the right to deny service to anyone? Then if transit must admit the smelly, are we admitting that transit is what we’ve said all along — a public service?

Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Check out our LinkedIn page!