The MT Position

 By Larry Mays

Surveillance cameras have been on buses for years. The video, recorded by a bus-mounted DVR or VCR, provides law enforcement officials with an opportunity to review criminal events. Transit operators can also look at the video to check on the driver’s performance.

The major problem with these reviews is they cannot be performed until the recorder has been retrieved — often long after an event has taken place.

The Maryland Transit Administration has plans to change that. The agency recently announced it will outfit its entire 700-bus fleet with video surveillance cameras and related equipment capable of downloading video at one of several depots. Upon arriving at the depot, the buses will electronically authenticate themselves then use a Wi-Fi hotspot to “dump” all video or just that tagged by alarm buttons.

The video will then be sent wirelessly to a central dispatch center. This way video can be available almost instantly, giving law enforcement officials a jump on indentifying suspects, witnesses and crimes. As anyone in law enforcement knows, time is critical in a criminal investigation.

The MTA, which plans to complete the project by early next year, has already placed the equipment on 130 of its new and existing buses.

Another goal for the new system will be the transmission of the downloaded video to MTA police squad cars in the field. That will still take an expanded wireless network and the placement of receiving technology in the cars.

We are not that far away from being able to transmit live, real-time streaming video from buses anywhere in a city. That would be possible by taking advantage of the latest security technology and the 3G networks or the wireless mesh networks that many cities across the country already have in place.

These networks provide a path for video to be transmitted from a surveillance camera to a central monitoring station operated by a school or transit authority, private provider or security monitoring company. Each camera on the bus is equipped with either a radio transmitter or 3G card. As the bus travels across town, the video is transmitted to the nearest wireless node and routed to the monitoring station.

By adding a GPS unit to each vehicle, a bus’ position could be pinpointed within a few meters. Then when an event takes place, a trained professional monitoring the cameras can see what is happening and knows where the bus is located. With existing technology, these coordinates are integrated in a way so the monitoring center knows the exact 9-1-1 dispatch number to call. Information can be shared with local law enforcement to provide a faster and more appropriate response.

Bus passengers and drivers get an extra feeling of safety with the cameras on board. Law enforcement will love the MTA system as the cameras act as a force multiplier for their officers on the streets. The video equipment also helps to harden the transit system against terrorists.

And the MTA officials aren’t stopping with video surveillance on buses. They already have hundreds of wireless cameras throughout Baltimore that cover metro and light rail stations. The video is transmitted to a central command center for monitoring. And they would like to add other detection systems, such as chemical and radiological devices, to further enhance the safety of transit passengers and other citizens.

”When trying to solve crimes, the first few hours are extremely important and this video capability allows us — literally at a moment’s notice — to respond to crime,” said Col. John Gavrillis, chief of police for the Maryland Transit Authority. “The MTA has really taken the lead among the transit agencies in utilizing video capabilities to secure their facilities.”

Indeed they have. They should be commended for taking new and existing technologies and combining them into a complete solution. Moving forward, we need to see this type of video surveillance expanded to other transit agencies across the country.

Larry Mays is group director for transportation and logistics for ADT Security Services.  He brings 31 years of transportation information management experience, helping to develop strategic network-based solutions for companies such as Unisys and Pan American World Airways.  Mays can be contacted at lmays@adt.com.

By Larry Mays

The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) may no longer have the funding necessary to complete its original plans to install a state-of-the-art security system throughout its bus and subway systems.

According to a report from the state comptroller, the project — begun after 9/11 — has made improvements through the installation of thousands of surveillance cameras and motion detectors, but the anticipated final cost of the project is now nearly more than $200 million over original estimates. Part of the problem lies with disputes between the MTA and the prime contractor resulting in lawsuits being filed by both parties.

It’s not my job to sort through the complaints and affix blame, but I would hope this project would serve as a wakeup call for other jurisdictions looking to upgrade security for their transit systems. As with any project — large or small — there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve wanted results.

Too many jobs fail because of one or more of these common mistakes. Be careful to not let these foil your efforts to secure your transit system’s passengers and employees:

• The requirements of the project are poorly defined. No project should begin until both the end user (transit authority) and the contractor fully understand what will be expected of each of them.
• During the design phase, there is inadequate input from the end users (usually police agency). A contractor can’t be expected to design and install the perfect security system without significant input from the officials and employees who will be using it on a daily basis.
• Senior management has not taken ownership of the project. This applies to both the end user and the contractor. Someone from both parties has to take responsibility for the success of the project and provide the leadership to help make it work.
• Unrealistic implementation timeline. This is another area where good communication between the end users and the contractor can make a huge difference. As a transit operator, be realistic about how much time it takes to install security equipment that will meet your needs for the long haul. And as a contractor, don’t promise what you know you can’t deliver.
• Unproven technology has been selected. It’s nice to always stay on the cutting edge, but sometimes it is best to invest in equipment that has been shown to work in a transit environment similar to yours.
• There is no clear training and transition plan. No project should be considered complete until the employees charged with implementing the system are fully trained and competent in its use.

Transit system security is more important than ever and with tight budgets it is vital that you and your system integrator/contractor get it right the first time.

So here is a look at some of the steps that I believe will lead to a successful project:

• Select the integrator first. Don’t try to move forward without the expertise of a security systems integrator experienced in securing transit systems. That expertise can save you time and money throughout the project process.
• Make sure there is a discernable public safety issue for the project. Don’t install cameras and other equipment without a clearly defined reason.
• Develop solid requirements in collaboration with the project integrator. Get everyone on the same page to eliminate as many possible misunderstandings from the start.
• Make sure that everyone is clear on the procedures and practices before, during and after a project. It is wise to know well in advance if the job will require the temporary closure of a route or station.
• Define what will constitute a successful project. That will give both you and the integrators a clear idea of the ultimate goal.
• Clearly define scope. Scope creep is a big challenge. As the project progresses people’s ideas change and even grow into grander ideas. Have clear boundaries — what’s in and what’s out. While big ideas are great for the boardroom there is no place for them during a project.
• Have a realistic phased implementation plan. That will give you set milestones to check and see if the integrator is living up to its end of the bargain. But do allow for problems beyond anyone’s control, such as bad weather and other natural disasters.
• Insist that your integrators lab test the equipment to simulate the environment of a subway tunnel, bridge or parking lot. It may cost a little more upfront, but it can save a lot of money down the line by limiting likely problems during and after installation.
• Create a win/win situation where both you and your integrator share the risks. That encourages teamwork and helps get everyone more involved in making the project a success. No one likes to fail.
• Finally, ensure that the appropriate security and operations staff are properly trained on security procedures and systems management for any new or upgraded solutions.

By following these tips, I can’t guarantee your entire security project will go smoothly without problems. But don’t leave success to chance. Careful planning in conjunction with your integrator will greatly increase the likelihood of achieving your goals.

Larry Mays is group director for transportation and logistics for ADT Security Services.  He brings 31 years of transportation information management experience, helping to develop strategic network-based solutions for companies such as Unisys and Pan American World Airways.  Mays can be contacted at lmays@adt.com.

 Posted by Brendan B. Read

On Thursday Jan.21, two Bombardier Flexity Outlook streetcars, borrowed from STIB, the Brussels transit agency, started rolling on the Olympic Line, a demonstrator addition to Vancouver, B.C., Canada’s transit system built for the 2010 Winter Olympics that begins Feb.12. The two ‘trams’ will operate free of charge until March 21 from the Olympic Village Canada Line rapid transit station 1.1 miles to the popular (and traffic-congested) shopping and entertainment hub of Granville Island, on the south shore of False Creek near the city’s downtown.

Bombardier’s participation in the project has already been paying off. Company officials report that Seattle streetcar representatives have already visited the line. The city of Seattle with Sound Transit, is building a $132 million streetcar route from the International District to First Hill and Capitol Hill in conjunction with the Link light rail extension to the University of Washington. The key selling point is the Flexity’s 100 percent low-floor layout, unlike the partial low-floor Skoda/Inekon streetcars in service on the city’s South Lake Union line.

Whether the Olympic Line continues service after March 21 and is extended beyond its present endpoints — the city of Vancouver is envisioning a network linking the downtown core, Stanley Park and the north shore of False Creek — depends on funding. With federal and provincial government representatives politely smiling on the same stand, Mayor Gregor Robertson made the pitch for money at the event. In the audience was former TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast who had flown in for the opening.

Vancouver’s transit has been facing the milder but still impacting version of an Olympic-sized funding crisis that has gripped transit agencies continent-wide. Prendergast left TransLink amidst financing disputes between local governments and the province that put the long-promised Evergreen Line SkyTrain extension to the northeast plus new bus routes to the growing but atrociously underserved areas in the southeast on hold, with fare hikes on the way. He became president of MTA New York City Transit just as the agency is planning service cuts as well as eliminating fare discounts and slicing administration costs to close a $383 million budget gap.

New York City is in the same rattling subway car as Chicago, Cleveland, San Diego and Salt Lake City to list just a few names on the growing list of transit agencies facing making cuts and as a last alternative raising fares — even as many of them receive ARRA money to buy equipment, renovate stations and maintenance facilities, and build new lines.

If it sounds strange that service is being chopped and fares are being hiked while new buses and railcars are being bought and bus and rail rapid transit projects are being constructed it is. And that’s precisely what’s wrong with American transit financing. There is no linkage between capital (federal) and operating (state/local) cost coverage.

Where the rubber literally meets the road is maintenance, which has been a local responsibility. Yet the billions in federal money invested on infrastructure and equipment risks going to waste if there is no money allocated to keep the assets in a state of good repair. The ARRA has some money for it but nowhere is it enough to meet transit agency needs.

The federal government has to step up to the plate here because the states and cities have boxed themselves in by relying on downturn-vulnerable sales taxes; it is next to impossible at this point for them to shift to more stable property taxes, which Canadian systems rely on, and which have dampened though not eliminated cuts and hikes there.

Washington should start financing transit system maintenance costs. In turn it should require applicant agencies and states to develop more stable operating support financing plans, including real estate transfer taxes where new transit services have boosted property values, plus have proven land-use policies that limit transit-killing and environment-damaging sprawl.

This last measure is being advocated in Canada in efforts to get transit-dedicated revenue from the federal gas tax. While the Canadian government streams money from it to local governments they have the discretion to spend the cash as they wish, which means in smaller communities, transit, outweighed by the road interests, gets little if anything and sometimes nothing.

Resolving today’s transit financing crisis will take an effort akin to competing in the Olympics. Yet the needs and the outcomes: increased greener, energy-secure mobility, healthier cities and towns, and a stronger economy, merits the toil and the dollars.

Brendan Read is a freelance journalist living in Vancouver.

By Kim Krushell

In 1996, Allan Bolstad, a city councilor in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, came up with an idea: on New Year’s Eve, when public transit in Edmonton is free, buses could collect donations in their fare boxes, with the money collected purchasing transit tickets for Edmontonians in need. From this one gesture, Donate-a-Ride was born.

Donate-a-Ride, an award-winning program and Edmonton’s only city council-created charity, is a community fundraising initiative providing transit tickets to charitable agencies to assist clients in crisis on a short-term basis. Without transportation access, people can miss out on everything from work and educational opportunities to medical treatments and access to basic services. In 2009, 59 charitable agencies received more than 88,000 transit tickets, which in turn served thousands of needy Edmontonians.

Funds for Donate-a-Ride are raised through sponsorship from corporations, public sector organizations and unions, the support of the city of Edmonton, and through donations from private citizens. Every year, we launch our annual fundraising drive in late December. From New Year’s Eve through the end of January, collection boxes are available on all city buses. Our program and sponsor list continue to grow; during last year’s campaign, we passed the $1 million mark in the value of tickets we have distributed to participating agencies since the start of the program.

Since my election to Edmonton City Council in 2004, I have had the privilege of serving as chair of the Donate-a-Ride Steering Committee. Working with City Council, and representatives from our city transit department and our major sponsors, we have continued to promote and to grow the program in recent years. I have been especially happy to see the continued support of our long time sponsors and partners through the recent economic downturn. They have continued to support it in spite of challenges they may face in their own businesses and organizations. This is important, because economic downturns often exacerbate the need for a program such as this one. That our program has continued to go ahead relatively unaffected speaks to our strong community spirit.

I take a lot of pride in the good work this program has done in Edmonton, but I’d also love to see this program — or similar ones — take root in other communities. I was given the opportunity to present on ‘How to Create a Donate-a-Ride Program in Your City’ at the June meeting of the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) in Whistler, British Columbia. We have also created a section on the Donate-a-Ride Web site outlining how to create a similar program in your city. We hold no proprietary rights over the program or the name; if you do start your own program, we’d appreciate knowing so we can recognize it and link to it from our Web site. We are also happy to provide advice or support (especially in the form of templates for sponsorship forms, brochures, etc.) to the best of our ability.

If you would like to sponsor Donate-a-Ride, are interested in how to create your own program, or would simply like to learn more, please visit our Web site, call me at (780) 496-8136, or email me.

Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season,

Kim Krushell
City Councillor
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

by Joe Caruso

I’m about to commit transit heresy but in doing so I’m betting that those of you reading this have had similar thoughts. So here it is … let’s rethink the whole idea of half fares for seniors and people with disabilities.

Back in the 1970s, transit systems began providing seniors and the disabled with half fares in non-peak hours as prescribed by federal law. In 1975 the first transit system I worked for was charging seniors and the disabled only 10 cents, which at the time was less than half the 25-cent base fare. Fast forward to today and often half fares are in the range of 75 cents to $1. Not bad over nearly 35 years, unless you’re a transit operator strapped for funds. Then the revenue losses can be quite significant. In the extreme instance of Chicago, Ill., the CTA estimates it will lose $60 million in 2010 due to giving free rides to seniors, the disabled and other economically disadvantaged groups. No wonder they are considering going back to doing only what is required by law. In Pennsylvania, seniors and the disabled ride free too, but at least the commonwealth provides a reimbursement for those rides.

At the time half fares were mandated the rationale was that, aside from being a huge voting block, seniors were mostly poor. There was also a much narrower interpretation of what a disability was which meant a much smaller eligible population. Transit systems then, as today, had off-peak capacity they wanted to fill. And let us not forget that at the time the feds provided both capital and operating assistance.

The premise that most seniors are poor is inaccurate and demeaning of that population segment. The U.S. Census estimates that only about 10 percent of seniors are below the poverty level. My guess is that there is another 10 percent or so at or on the edge of the poverty level. Yet so are a significant number of non-seniors who rely on transit and have to pay full fares.

Even if we buy into the economic argument being more relevant to people with disabilities, there is still the expense of operating two parallel services and the expansion of the definition of disabled through the Americans with Disabilities Act. These are factors that didn’t exist when the original mandates were legislated.

Basing transit fares solely on age, income or disabilities is dicey at best and potentially unjust to non-senior and non-disabled transit riders who pay full fares as well as taxpayers, all of whom are likely making up the difference.

It’s time to rethink the half-fare policy, not just in Chicago, but nationwide. For example, seniors and the disabled could benefit from lower average fares simply by buying passes and other discounted fare forms. These fare forms are more equitable ways to pass along savings and at the same time reward loyalty, simplify most fare structures and speed up operations.

Is there a middle ground between where we are today and no half fares? Possibly, but as an industry, transit and those who make decisions for transit need to recognize that, just like many other aspects of our business, we should not continue half fares just because “we’ve always done it that way.”

Joe Caruso is senior consultant for Brecon Hill Consulting. He’s the former marketing director for the Milwaukee County Transit System (WI) and has nearly 35 years of transit marketing experience. He welcomes your comments at jcaruso@breconhill.com.

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.

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.

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

People entrust their lives to public transit authorities every day. So why are drivers putting the public at risk by text messaging or using their cell phones while driving, and what can be done to prevent it?

Last April, I had the fortunate opportunity to attend the 10th annual Green Cross for Safety Dinner in New York City.  Hosted by the National Safety Council, this event recognizes organizations for “a steadfast commitment to improving safety and health in the workplace, its community and through safety leadership demonstrated by its CEO.”(1) This year’s recipient was FirstGroup’s CEO, Sir Moir Lockhead, and I would like to offer my congratulations.

Lockhead made the comment, “Our commitment to the safety of our employees and customers through our Injury Prevention Program means if you cannot do it safely, don’t do it.(2) Lockhead’s comment brings me to the critical subject of this blog. Something you can’t do safely while driving is use a cell phone or PDA. The NSC has done a great job of bring this life-endangering practice to the forefront of public attention. I’d like to continue to raise industry and public awareness of this serious issue.

A passenger who steps on to a public bus expects a safe and professional ride, and transit authorities are responsible for passenger safety. Crash statistics linked to texting while driving and cell phone use are escalating. Would you want to ride on a bus with a driver who is text messaging?

A study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Motor Safety found that motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times more likely to crash.(3) A British study recently found that motorists who drive while texting are more impaired than a drunk driver, with driver reaction times decreasing as much as 35 percent.(4)

In a recent survey, one in four Americans admitted to texting while driving.(5) The American Medical Association called text messaging while driving “a public health risk” and cited a study that found that text messaging while driving causes a 400 percent increase in time spent with eyes off the road.(6)

Distracted driving is the leading cause of motor vehicle accidents. According to a 2006 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near crashes. Nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event.(7)

The growing mountain of statistics gathered by U.S. researchers and traffic safety experts confirming the danger of text messaging and cell phone use while driving has prompted attention from lawmakers. According to an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California and the District of Columbia have already outlawed the use of hand-held phones while driving, while as many as 38 states are considering 133 bills that would regulate their use in a motor vehicle.(8)

Given that cell phones and other hand-held electronic devices have become an ever-more important part of our daily lives, it seems some people are having difficulty recognizing when to hang up, including professional drivers. The reckless use of cell phones and text messaging has not decreased despite attention from lawmakers, pressure from insurance companies, and growing public awareness of the issue in the wake of numerous high-profile accidents.

A quick news or Internet search will uncover countless stories about distracted drivers on cell phones killing or injuring themselves, their passenger(s), another driver, or a cyclist or pedestrian on the side of the road. The story of distracted driving becomes even more disturbing when the people we trust with our public safety succumb to these alarming accident statistics.

While the majority of transit drivers conduct themselves safely and responsibly, in the past year, there has been a spate of incidents where professional drivers employed by transit agencies have caused accidents by using cell phones or text messaging while driving.

In September 2008, the world of mass transit was rocked by the news that the worst U.S. train crash in 15 years had been caused by an engineer who had been sending and receiving text messages seconds before his crowded commuter train blew through a red light and collided with a freight train. The event, which took place in Chatsworth, California, killed 25 people and injured 135.

In May 2009, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority found it necessary to ban drivers of trains, street cars and buses from using or carrying cell phones in response to an incident where a trolley operator ran a red light and hit another trolley, injuring 49 people. The operator later admitted that he was sending a test message to his girlfriend at the time.

In another stunning incident that recently hit the news, a San Antonia VIA Metropolitan Transit driver was recently caught on video driving through rush hour traffic while texting.(9) The driver slammed into the back of an SUV, injuring the diver. The bus also had two handicapped passengers onboard. In the video, driver Adrian Perez was texting for almost six minutes prior to the crash.

VIA Metropolitan Transit reports that it has fired three bus operators in the last few months after drivers were caught on video tape using their cell phones. One driver was reportedly caught texting five times during his route, and another was caught driving 65-miles an hour while texting.(10) Since the surveillance cameras were installed on the buses in June of 2008, several other videos have been released where drivers have been caught violating VIA policy, allowing the company to intervene and take action.(11)

These kinds of incidents are far from isolated, and transit agencies are being forced to think about how to stop the abuse of cell phones and PDAs on the job. In fact, transit agencies are increasingly turning to video surveillance as a means of deterring or identifying drivers who place the public at risk through the unauthorized use of cell phones or other electronic devices. The human cost, the liability costs, and the cost associated with damage to property quickly illustrate the importance of mobile surveillance in curbing distracted driving. Mobile surveillance cameras provide an immediate deterrent, preventing accidents and saving countless dollars.

Through our extensive experience in the transit industry, we at Seon Design Inc. have witnessed the importance of mobile surveillance in promoting a safe environment for passengers and employees alike. One look at the video of Adrian Perez and the message about distracted driving should be clear; yet there are professional drivers on the road today engaged in this risky behavior. Surveillance cameras give companies some control by providing insight into their employee’s driving behavior. They give you the opportunity to intervene before it’s too late. It is no longer a question of whether transit companies can afford to have mobile surveillance, but rather if they can afford not to.

Ian Radziejewski is the president of Seon Design Inc.

1. National Safety Council.

2. Ibid.

3. Edgar Snyder & Associates. Car Accident Cell Phone Statistics.

4. Transport Research Laboratory. Dangers of Texting While Driving.

5. Vlingo. Second Annual Vlingo Consumer Mobile Messaging Habits Report.

6. Partnership for Safe Driving. A Call to Drivers: Put Down the Phone.

7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.

8. Cooper, Christopher. Should driving while texting be a crime? Wall Street Journal.

9. Bus Driver Texting Crash.

10. Count on News2. Caught on tape: Texting San Antonio bus driver responsible for violent crash.

11. Ibid.

By Todd McDaniel

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is making $8.4 billion available for public transportation. This is in addition to the $10.4 billion proposed in the FY2009 budget for a total of $18.8 billion for public transportation capital projects. The ARRA funds do not require a local match from state or operating funds so $1 of ARRA funds is the equivalent of $1.25 of annual appropriation funds. To put this in perspective, The American Public Transportation Association recorded 10.7 billion public transportation boardings, including buses, rail and other modes in 2008. This number includes every time a passenger boarded public transportation, including multiple boardings for transfers in a single trip. The ARRA and the FY2009 appropriation will provide an estimated $1.76 for every public transportation boarding in the United States.

ARRA funds have an important distinction from other federal funding of public transportation. The money appropriated to each agency must be spent within one year. In fact, 50 percent must be committed within the first 180 days or the Secretary of Transportation will withdraw the money and redistribute to agencies that have committed 50 percent of the funds. The remaining 50 percent must be committed by March 5, 2010 or the same withdrawal rules apply. Many states began amending their five year Transportation Improvement Plans before the bill was passed to add or move projects up to the current year to take advantage of ARRA funds before the time limit expired.

ARRA funds must be spent on capital projects. In other words, they cannot be spent on the day-to-day operations providing public transportation like fuel or driver payroll. The funds can be spent on buses, new facilities, planning, preventative maintenance, property acquisition or information technology projects. ARRA funds will not address operating budget crises that many U.S. transit authorities are currently experiencing due to decreases in other tax-based revenue sources.

In addition to time limits, the ARRA funding comes with a new set of reporting and certification requirements. The Obama administration has stressed that stimulus funds will be “subject to unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability.” On the recovery.gov Web site there are five objectives listed for the spending of ARRA funds:

• Recovery funds are awarded and distributed in a prompt, fair and reasonable manner.
• The recipients and uses of all recovery funds are transparent to the public, and that the public benefits of these funds are reported clearly, accurately and in a timely manner.
• Recovery funds are used for authorized purposes and every step is taken to prevent instances of fraud, waste, error and abuse.
• Projects funded under the recovery legislation avoid unnecessary delays and cost overruns.
• Programs meet specific goals and target, and contribute to improved performance on broad economic indicators.

To help meet these objectives, under Section 1511 of the ARRA, transit chief executives will be required to certify in writing that all investments have received the full review and vetting required by law and accept responsibility that the investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Transit agencies are also required to segregate ARRA funds from all other funding and report sources and uses separately.

So what does this all mean for transit authorities? First the good news, the rapid infusion of large capital amounts to support the long-term goals of public transportation has the potential to change the future of public transit in the United States. New services and routes and more convenient facilities could make public transportation available to the large percentage of U.S. households that do not currently have access.

The time limits imposed by the ARRA will put new pressure on transit to identify the projects to fund with recovery funds and issue purchase orders quickly to avoid losing funding. Project managers and purchasing staff will still need to meet all the regulatory requirements including EPA approval, disadvantaged business participation and bidding processes but may not have the same amount of time available.

Adding to the pressure of time limits, transit authority executives are coming to grips with personal certifications to taxpayers. These certifications will be posted on the recovery.gov Web site for review by all taxpayers and constituents.  This certification process is reminiscent of the Sarbanes Oxley Act that radically changed private sector financial reporting. Transit executives will be forced to both spend money quicker than normal and report and account for that spending at a higher level than ever before. The easiest way to meet the time requirements may be the hardest thing to certify and explain to taxpayers and the easiest expenditures to explain to taxpayers may be the hardest way to meet the time requirements.

Overall, public transit is being pushed into a brighter spotlight than ever before with the American public. More and more people are relying on public transportation, the government is spending more and more of taxpayers’ money to build a public transportation infrastructure, and the taxpayers are requiring more and more information on how their money is being spent. American public transportation is at a crossroads that could lead to a radically different reality a decade from now.

Todd McDaniel CPA, PMP is a senior consultant with Capital Ledger Inc. and blogs at www.transitstimulus.blogspot.com.