The MT Position

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine

How time flies. It was 28 days ago that I wrote this discussing the status of the federal transit funding bill. At that point it was sitting in a weird Twilight Zone between the House and Senate. Rather than make a decision it was postponed until the end of October to deliberate on it a little further. Now October is over. And so are our hopes for speedy transit funding.

And it doesn’t look like they’re even asking for a massive new funding bill. No, they can’t even agree upon a six-month extension of the current bill. That’s right. Transit is desperate for operating funds, the construction industry is in such a desperate state that there are bulldozers on the Capitol steps. Oh, wait, this is a transportation funding bill, not a mass transit funding bill? I guess that got lost in the shuffle.

You’d think with the Bay Bridge falling apart and the cries for the need to fix infrastructure across the country someone in Congress would be listening right now. Even when stories about Amtrak losing money and how transit isn’t really a “commuting” option are being floated out there, the fact of the matter is that as a nation we have gone from blindly ignorant of our situation when it comes to transportation infrastructure to willingly ignorant.

I know that with the flu ravaging the country — I know, I have it — and the merits of a public option for government healthcare dominating the news media it’s easy for us to forget what’s going on around us. Of course, that is until a bridge cable snaps and drops on your car.

Please take the time to answer our You Decide! poll. You can’t miss the red, white and blue logo 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!

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine

Ever had one of those days or weeks that just goes off the rails? One where everything you planned to do got pushed to the side by stuff that just came up at the last minute. This week’s blog went off the rails about 10 this morning when I was reviewing this week’s news stories. Sometimes people are just so maddeningly ignorant you have to call them out.

I had been a part of a transit symposium put on by INIT this week in Virginia Beach, and I had planned on writing my blog on some thoughts from that, but then I read this story.

You have got to be kidding me!

OK, let me get this straight. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen is suing to prevent video cameras being put into the cab of Metrolink trains because it is an invasion of privacy?

Did anyone explain to them that this wouldn’t have been an issue if the engineer driving the Metrolink train on Friday, September 12th, 2008, had been doing his job instead of texting, so he could have prevented a head-on collision with a Union Pacific train, which resulted in 25 deaths and more than $200 million in liability damages to the agency alone?

Did anyone explain to them that this is a public transit vehicle? So cameras are OK to view the passengers, but the engineers get a private suite up front? It’s not like it’s a bathroom or anything that, you know, something you would normally consider private. I’ve been in cabs while the train is going down the tracks. When the engineer is doing his job it’s not really exciting viewing. Because—and let me reiterate—he’s doing his job. How many of our jobs are enthralling viewing?

This isn’t even a nuisance lawsuit. It goes beyond that. This is tantamount to flipping off the agency and its rules despite the fact that the cameras could improve both safety and performance by the engineers.

Heck, virtually all transit buses have cameras on the drivers these days. Why should these guys be given any sort of a break, especially after such a devastating crash just a year ago?

Oh wait, I forgot, following the rules is a “bad” thing.

Public transportation is just that — public. It’s public for the riders. It’s public for the drivers. And it’s public for the train engineers. At some point we have to stop dancing around the subject of safety and do what is the best for all involved.

Please take the time to answer our You Decide! poll. You can’t miss the red, white and blue logo 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!

By Timothy Psomas

Our nation’s leaders must address the deteriorating state of the U.S. transportation system. The serious backlog of transportation improvement projects is undermining our ability to stimulate economic recovery and remain globally competitive.

The current surface transportation-funding bill expired on September 30, 2009. This bill allocated $280 billion spread over six years, and it’s out of money. The authorization by Congress of a new transportation bill, now in the House Transportation Committee, would establish a funding level of $450 billion for the next six years. The Obama administration, however, is pushing for an 18-month delay. That gets us into the pre-election season, where there will be too much competition on the political agenda from issues like healthcare, global warming and reducing the national debt. Realistically speaking, we are facing a 24 to 36-month delay in getting a new transportation-funding bill through Congress.

There is no incentive for transit agencies or departments of transportation to initiate long-term projects without a reliable funding source on the horizon. As a consequence, we will end up with minor projects as opposed to adding capacity.

This is a delay we as a nation can’t afford. Transportation funding will create jobs and stimulate the economy. A high-functioning transportation network is critical for the efficient movement of goods throughout the country and to increase worker productivity by reducing time spent stuck in traffic.

Of the $788 billion Stimulus Plan, only $37.4 billion was appropriated for highways and transit. Much more needs to be done to address the serious backlog of transportation improvement projects. Current budget forecasts project a 50 percent cut in the highway program in FY 2010 without new revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. This funding shortfall will only exacerbate persistent problems of overburdened transit systems, congested roads and deficient bridges. Implementing a stable and growing financing mechanism for transportation projects must be a key priority.

It’s time that the public sector took a fresh look at alternative means of financing transportation projects. And one highly viable financing option is public-private partnerships. Given the serious financial constraints affecting state and local agency budgets, the idea of leveraging public money with private financing is finally taking off. Public officials now realize there is room for the public and private sector to join together to get projects off the ground.

In other parts of the world public-private partnerships are commonplace: Spain, France and Australia for instance. In the U.S., public-private partnerships have taken a foothold in Texas, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, and Nevada. For the first time in California, public agencies are taking public-private partnerships seriously. New state laws in California finally have opened the door to the financing that these partnerships would provide.

For example, one very promising opportunity for a public-private partnership is the planned 800-mile high-speed train system from Southern California to the Bay Area, which is currently in preliminary design. California voters passed a $10 billion bond measure to finance the project, with another portion of the estimated $40 billion cost to come from federal sources. Some $4.5 to $7 billion is anticipated to come from public-private partnerships. Private sector involvement would not only contribute a portion of the financing, but also would bring the hard business expertise to ensure a workable business plan.

Unfortunately a new bill now before the Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and Finance, S. 884, will penalize states that turn to public-private partnerships to fund transportation projects. If adopted, the bill would reduce the funding these states receive through the Highway Trust Fund by changing the grant allocation formulas for several programs to exclude privately operated facilities.

As the S.884 illustrates, there are still obstacles in the face of widespread support for public-private partnerships. Gaining such support will require a major education campaign. There is a great deal of misinformation spread by the major opposition, the public employee unions. The unions are concerned about loss of control—fearing that once the private sector gets its foot in the door, the public sector loses control over design, construction and operation. It will take a concerted effort by a coalition of engineers, transit agencies, departments of transportation and financial interests to the provide education and lobbying needed to demonstrate that these kind of partnerships can and will work.

The current dismal state of public agency coffers is giving us the opportunity to develop the track record and mutual trust that public-private partnerships are a viable means of addressing our nation’s transportation needs.

Timothy Psomas is the chairman of the board of Psomas, a consulting engineering firm headquartered in Los Angeles with offices across the Western United States. He is also the current Chairman of the American Council of Engineering Companies, which represents more than 5,000 firms throughout the county.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

As we plunged into the election season last year we were steamrolled with a double shot of media blitz covering the two presidential candidates and the sharply declining economy. Transit was plugging along floating on surging ridership numbers to prove to politicians that they were in fact worth the money spent on them. CTA had just averted a doomsday and things were good. Unfortunately, it looks like it took a while for things to catch up.

It’s a year later and where is transit now? Probably worse than it was last year. Sorry to be a downer, but of the 10 largest transit agencies in the country more than half are probably facing serious budget issues in the next year. Both the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) are looking at fare increases and service cuts to cover budget shortfalls in 2010. Clayton County Transit (C-Tran) in Georgia, which was operated by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is shutting down all service and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is being subsumed into what is being dubbed a “superagency” incorporating several formerly independent state entities.

And yet, we somehow have time to wait (i.e. waste) for the passing of a new transportation funding bill?

Transit is starting to really feel the pinch of the economy. Sure it felt it some last year, but as tax (and other) revenues continue to decline, funding streams dry up and state governments start looking toward transit budgets as potential places to trim their own budget shortfalls, transit is really starting to take it on the chin.

Sadly, as ridership numbers continue to show, this is when transit is needed the most. It used to be a call to cut transit budgets because all those buses did was, “transport air,” but with that argument quashed, transit gets held up as not being able to pay for itself or other silly statements.

I admit it. I’m a rail guy. I like riding trains. But I also enjoy a good bus ride, and I’m smart enough to know that if I take the train to a city, I need to have another form of transit when I get there or I am stuck. So we can talk about high-speed rail all we want (And I love the current talk!), but we can’t sacrifice our transit systems in exchange for rail systems.

The government, and by government I mean federal, state and local, must do whatever they can to make sure these transit systems keep providing the essential services this industry provides.

If we don’t do that, pretty soon it will be someone like CTA and not C-Tran that shuts down for good.

Please take the time to answer our You Decide! poll. You can’t miss the red, white and blue logo 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!

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

I just got back from the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) annual meeting yesterday and found in my email a link to the Brookings Institute’s report on air travel, “Expect Delays: An Analysis of Air Travel Trends in the United States.” So what does this have to do with public transportation? A lot more than you might think at first glance.

One thing I hear a lot around the ‘ole transit water cooler is whether the United States can compare itself to Europe in terms of public transportation. The United States is much larger in comparison to a European nation. And, because of this (and for other reasons I am sure), the make-up of our metropolitan areas is different as the Brookings’ report points out, “contrary to many European countries with less land area and a clear metropolitan capital, the United States has multiple metropolitan centers throughout the country.”

I’ve discussed this before here that the United States is comparable to Europe, but only in a regional sense. Here is where the Brookings’ report becomes much more interesting. According to the report, “nearly 99 percent of all U.S. air passengers arrive or depart from one of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, with the vast majority of travel concentrated in 26 metropolitan-wide hubs.” And, “half of the country’s flights are routes of less than 500 miles, and the busiest corridors are between the metropolitan air travel centers.”

Airplanes produce the most pollution during takeoffs and landings, so multiple short-distance flights are not necessarily the best choice for the environment in these metropolitan areas. Of course, we’ve painted ourselves into a corner here with only air or auto as our means of traversing these distances for the most part since as a nation we’ve let our rail infrastructure fall by the wayside as the report points out, “this underinvestment left the country, especially at distances between 200 and 500 miles, with little modal choice and competition.”

Interesting. So rail is a preferable choice for distances between 200-400 miles? Definitely. Let’s take a look at my handy “Vision for High-Speed Rail in America” map next to my desk:

• San Diego to Los Angeles = 121 miles
• Los Angeles to San Francisco = 381 miles
• Chicago to Minneapolis = 410 miles (with Milwaukee and Madison in between)
• Chicago to St. Louis = 295 miles
• Chicago to Detroit = 303 miles
• Dallas to Austin = 199 miles
• Austin to Houston = 193 miles
• Houston to Dallas = 240 miles
• Orlando to Miami = 234 miles
• Washington, D.C. to Boston = 438 miles (with Philly and NYC in between)

So what does the Brookings’ report say about a high-speed rail investment? “It should concentrate a large share of resources in one corridor with broad political support that also consistently tests as a high-ridership corridor.” Sounds like my map wasn’t lying. We can have successful high-speed rail in the United States, which will in turn help the airline industry become greener both environmentally and economically.

Of course, there is always a but at the end of these things, “However, the full benefits of high-speed rail investments will only truly be realized when they work in tandem with airports to offer smooth and efficient travel on both modes.”

Having frequently used the Amtrak Hiawatha Line stop at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell airport, I can attest to the advantages of this. This is all about setting up a network, and not just a rail network. It has to be an integrated network taking into consideration ports, rail (both freight and commuter), airports and highways to improve travel across all modes.

That’s the mistake made with the interstate highway system. It’s great for autos, but it sucks for everything else.

Please take the time to answer our You Decide! poll. You can’t miss the red, white and blue logo 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!

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

It’s October 2nd. Do you know where your federal transportation bill is? Currently it’s in the Twilight Zone somewhere between the House and the Senate as Rod Sirling looks on in silence, smoking a cigarette and shaking his head.

I remember a time when things were rosy for transit. New stimulus money was coming in and the promise of more was on the way. Ridership was at historic levels and it looked like the public had finally made the decision that transit was a good thing for the United States. The only specter that lay looming on the horizon was the soon-to-expire transportation funding bill, but with a rail fan in the Oval Office, and like-minded folks in Congress, what could go wrong. Right?

Sorry, this is the Twilight Zone remember. Where we tell everyone we want to get people back to work and yet hem and haw about funding it. Or we try to twist a funding extension with earmarks to make sure more than half of the money only goes to four states — that’s less than 10 percent folks.

So let me get this straight. Transit puts people to work. And if it doesn’t put them to work, it is responsible for getting even more of them to work. It is an industry built around the idea of being for and by the public. Yet coming up with a bill to provide funding for it isn’t a slam dunk? Come on.

Somewhere along the way we need to get it across to our elected officials that transit isn’t a semi-private, quasi-public, maybe for-profit, service. Transit is an essential service not just for the major metropolitan areas, but for everyone. Sure the state of Wyoming has less people in it than the city of Milwaukee proper, but it still has transit agencies that are providing a service to their riders.

We can’t look at transit as a local phenomenon. Transit is a national issue. Transit funding needs to be considered on the federal level just like we do things like defense — as an afterthought. Transit bill? Bam. Funded. No questions. No hemming and hawing. No filibusters. Next.

As I wrote this, the press release came across my desk about Congress passing a one month extension of SAFETEA-LU. Cool. We can have this argument again in a month.

Transit moves tens of billions of people a year. Billions. That’s more than 20,000 times the population of Wyoming.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Please take the time to answer our You Decide! poll. You can’t miss the red, white and blue logo 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!

By Kenneth Mall

Earlier this year, two nationwide news stories — both having huge ramifications for public transit operators — were published within weeks of each other. One report announced that U.S. public transit ridership reached its highest level in 52 years, to 10.7 billion trips in 2008, even as gasoline pump prices began to decline.

The other story was less positive.

Discussion is reemerging in Washington — even in these difficult economic times — about increasing the current 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax by as much as 10 cents per gallon. The gasoline tax funds improvements to the nation’s highways, bridges and other transportation infrastructure, but provides very little funding for mass transit, which, under a gas tax increase, would face yet higher ridership demand.

If that isn’t enough to send rumbles across public transit systems, there is another developing issue, as well. According to studies conducted by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, the public transit industry is going to experience a great number of valuable employees leaving the workforce due to retirement.

This is not only due to the “baby boomer” generational shift, but also because many public transit agencies were first formed in the 1970s. Those first employees have come to the conclusion of their 30- to 35-year careers.

As a result, there will be a great need to fill these positions with younger, qualified replacements. However, most people are completely unaware of the many possible career opportunities in the public transit industry, from operators and mechanical support, to logistical and administrative positions.

These are well-paying jobs in a segment of the transportation industry which is expected to grow in the near- and mid-term future as more cities and regions build, improve and expand existing networks to meet increased ridership demand. In addition, the new administration has expressed interest and support for economic stimulus funding for public transit.

There is new interest and growing support for public transportation, spurred by higher fuel prices, the increased cost of car ownership (18 cents for every household dollar spent), and climbing traffic congestion in many regions around the country. The environmental benefits of public transportation include reduced fuel consumption by 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline/year, reduced carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons/year, and improved air quality. Careers in the public transportation field can truly be classified as “green jobs,” which contribute to a healthier environment.

In addition, Congress has been working to address the transit experience/knowledge gap with the introduction of the Transportation Job Corps Act of 2008 (HR 7053), which provides funding for recruitment and retention of workers. The bill is expected to be re-introduced later this year, and demonstrates serious national interest in this issue.

Public transit agencies as well need to address the issue of attracting, hiring, and training and development of new and younger employees with skills assessment, customized job training, and analyzing organizational knowledge loss to meet their workforce needs in the years to come. Successful and best practices have been developed and achieved in transit regions such as San Mateo County, Calif., and with transit agencies and their affiliated unions across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the auspices of the non-profit Keystone Development Partnership.

Projects under these partnerships are dedicated to addressing major skill gaps caused by the introduction of new technology into buses and trains, and the rapidly changing demographics as the result of an aging and soon-to-retire skilled workforce.

And now, with public transit ridership dramatically increasing, and the potential of increased fuel taxes, maintaining efficient, reliable transit systems with an energized, educated workforce will be more challenging than ever.

Kenneth Mall is managing director, Workforce Consulting at EDSI in Dearborn, Mich.