The Fourth of July weekend always means high travel volumes, and this year was no exception. While it has yet to be announced how many Americans traveled over the holiday weekend, a recent survey by AAA predicted the number of travelers would jump to 34.9 million, up 17.1 percent from 29.8 million travelers in 2009.

Although holidays like the Fourth always bring traveling pains to the forefront, it is daily commutes that really hit the psyche of the commuter. Released last week, the findings of IBM’s annual Global Commuter Pain Index put daily travel into context. The study was based on a survey of 8,192 drivers in 20 cities worldwide, including three of the most congested cities in the United States: New York, Los Angeles and Houston. More than 31 percent of those surveyed said traffic was so bad at times that they turned around and went home. Nearly a quarter of drivers in LA reported being stuck in traffic for more than an hour, and one in five had delays of more than two hours.

Some may dismiss congestion as a necessary trade-off for city living, but inefficient transportation impacts more than quality of life. It reduces the productivity of workers, the flow of goods and overall economic competitiveness — not to mention our air quality and the global climate. Despite these concerns, the United States spends at most 2.6 percent of GDP on infrastructure — far lower than countries such as China, which invests in infrastructure at a rate of 9 to 12 percent of GDP.

The Commuter Pain Index underlines the urgent need to reinvent America’s transportation system to meet the economic demands of the 21st century. As the population of cities across the country continues to expand, the United States must go beyond simply building more roads or adding more trains. We need to run existing and new systems more efficiently through a combination of technology, planning and greater intelligence.

A smarter transportation system will connect and collect the data of vehicles, government agencies, freight carriers, travel service providers, weather patterns and even individuals using tools like social media. But connectivity alone isn’t enough. To get insight from all that data, we need to apply advanced analytics — sophisticated mathematical models that detect the patterns and spot the correlations within large volumes of information, turning real-time insight into predictive actions. This can create a more traveler-centric system, empowering commuters and shippers with real-time updates so they can control their own journeys across multiple modes of transportation, adjusting to last-minute schedule changes or service disruptions.

Cities around the globe are testing this now. Netherlands Railways is already using smarter technology to weigh variables, including passenger demand and available rail cars to assemble and schedule 5,000 trains over a network of 390 stations and 2,800 kilometers of track. Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp. (THSRC) is leveraging smarter technology to ensure that hundreds of high-speed passenger trains are safe and on time, maintaining an average punctuality rate of 99.15 percent.

In addition to these real-life examples, new technologies are in the process of being developed and tested. The train of the future will be able to leverage smart vision technology to sense what is around it, including obstacles in its path so it can slow down and stop without human intervention. It will also be able to harness data to predict and prevent breakdowns, using sensors to collect data and alert operators before the issues impact a train’s safety and schedule.

If there’s one thing the Commuter Pain Index makes clear, it’s that the United States cannot afford not to invest in smarter transportation — both from a public health and economic standpoint. And the challenge of updating the infrastructure is far too big for transportation agencies alone. The best investments will combine actions by agencies with those of businesses and commuters themselves. All parties need to work together, using the latest information technology not only to repair our systems today, but to prepare for what is to come.

By bringing our mass transit system into the 21st century, we can deliver better commuter experiences, ensure faster freight deliveries and keep America’s economy and society moving forward.

Raul Arce is vice president, travel and transportation for IBM.

Civil War veteran and political leader Robert G. Ingersoll said, “He loves his country best who strives to make it best.” And one important way we can respect that principle is by advancing high-speed rail (HSR).

We are way behind. By most estimates, Europe and parts of Asia are decades ahead of the United States when it comes to HSR and China is cleaning our clock. And I’m not the only one who thinks so.

“Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination,” explained President Barack Obama in an address last April on HSR. “It is happening right now; it’s been happening for decades. The problem is, it’s been happening elsewhere, not here.

“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,” added President Obama, “A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs. There’s no reason why we can’t do this.”

President Obama has a point. HSR is one of the best ways to move people, whether the metric of interest is energy consumed, land used, or units of carbon emitted into the air. It is advantageous economically, environmentally, and practically. We can build HSR here. And we should — for a number of very good reasons.

HSR Reduces Dependency of Fossil Fuels
Relying on foreign oil and fossil fuels diminishes our control over our collective destiny. Uncertain supplies and unstable pricing make things worse. But with an electrified HSR system, multiple energy sources can be used to generate the requisite electricity, including nuclear, hydroelectric, or solar. Because of this flexibility, HSR is an environmentally friendly, sustainable technology.

HSR Reduces Congestion
In this country, most people drive. They drive because there are few practical alternatives. A comprehensive HSR system could change that, reducing the number of cars on our highways. But congestion is in no way limited to roads.

A recent study by the Brookings Institute revealed that half of U.S. air traffic is regional. They define that to mean that half the flying public goes less than 500 miles on each flight. With a regional HSR system, those flights could be largely eliminated, creating much more efficient and effective downtown-to-downtown travel. In addition, airport gates could be freed for international travel. Current airports could be more judiciously used and new airports — huge capital investments unto themselves — might not even need to be built.

HSR and U.S. Olympic Pursuits
In the fierce competition to host Olympic events, Chicago lost to Rio de Janeiro and New York lost to London. All else being equal, one striking difference between the two winning and losing cities is HSR. Rio does not yet have HSR; but the country is seeking bids to build HSR between Rio and Sao Paolo (Brazil’s largest city), with service to be available in time for the games.

The host of the 2012 games, London, is already connected to Europe by HSR through the Chunnel. Travelers can enter London’s center via a one-seat ride from either Paris or Brussels.  While Chicago and New York — both contenders for the Olympic games — have good urban and regional rail networks, they have no true HSR under the international definition available. It seems fairly clear that, HSR was a factor in the decision-making process.

HSR and the Rest of the World
Japan started its famous Shinkansen or “bullet train” in 1964. Now they have 1,500 HSR route miles. Europe began its HSR system in 1981 with the Paris-to-Lyon route. Today, HSR service crisscrosses Europe in a comprehensive network. Taking that example to heart, China on July 1, 2010 is opening its fourth HSR line since 2008 and expects to have more than 10,000 HSR route miles in operation by 2030, with the Beijing-Shanghai line already opening in 2012. Vietnam, Turkey, Russia — the global HSR list is long. But until recently, with the exception of Amtrak’s Acela Express service in the Northeast Corridor, a U.S. list didn’t even exist.

HSR Is an Investment
All infrastructure costs money, and HSR is no exception. But it is an investment.  And the cost for building capacity in alternative modes could be much higher and at greater environmental cost.  Imagine how different our country would be if the builders of our 19th-century railroad system balked because of the cost of the Transcontinental Railway. Would we have developed the Western half of the United States? Or would it be part of Spain now? Or Mexico? Investments cost money, but they pay dividends. Like the Transcontinental Railway, the New York City subway system, and the ARC Mass Transit Tunnel, an HSR system is an infrastructure investment that will pay great dividends well into the next century.

One of the best ways to minimize the investment cost is to take the HSR process out of the political arena. Establish a legislative program that has long-term stability, so that we can develop efficient designs, and program the system so that the effort is not awkwardly mobilizing and then demobilizing in very inefficient ways. Build a national system in a systematic way to gain efficiencies and economies of scale, build our own domestic industry, much like the Eisenhower Highway System program did. The key is long-term vision and stability.

We are way behind in HSR. But in many areas, the United States leads the world. We are inventive, effective, and determined. When it comes to freight rail, for example, we are the envy of the world. Why can’t we do the same thing with high-speed rail? We can and we should. High-speed rail is not just a good, environmentally friendly, economically advantageous idea. It is also a patriotic imperative.

Al Engel is the Philadelphia-based vice president and high-speed rail director for AECOM, a global provider of professional services.

By Daniel Neuburger

With so many transit operators across the country raising fares, American workers are increasingly facing the prospect of growing out-of-pocket expenses associated with getting to work.  Tax-free commuter benefit programs offer commuters a way to help ease this financial strain.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) passed in February 2009, included a provision to raise the monthly limit a commuter can deduct from their paycheck on a pretax basis from $120 to $230 to pay for their commute and accrue savings. The increase of the monthly limit brought the total potential savings for commuters enrolled in a commuter benefits program to around $1,100 annually. However, the additional savings related to the cap increase will disappear if the law is allowed to sunset on December 31, 2010, as it is now written.

A Quick Overview of Commuter Benefits

A commuter benefit program offered by an employer allows employees to deduct pretax dollars from their paycheck to go toward their commuting costs. The monthly limit is set by the IRS and is currently $230. The employee saves money when joining the program by having less of his or her paycheck taxed. Pretax dollars are provided to the employee on a monthly basis and used for one of many commuter benefit products such as debit cards, pre-purchased transit passes, transit vouchers, etc.  These convenient options ensure that the funds are used strictly for transit commuting, meeting IRS compliance. And the employer saves money as well thanks to reduced overall payroll taxes.

Based on the 2009 Commuter Impact Survey (CIS) conducted by TransitCenter Inc., of human resource benefit decision makers in New York, Chicago and San Francisco, more than one-third (35 percent) of all companies and nearly 60 percent of larger companies are now offering tax-free commuter benefits. The survey also revealed that nearly half (46 percent) of employers located in central business districts offer tax-free commuter benefits to their employees.  The survey also showed that commuter benefits continue to rise in terms of adoption and have become one of the “core four” benefits offered along with health, retirement and disability. This is likely due to the recognition by HR professionals that commuter benefits save money for employees and employers alike.

The Impact of the $230 Transit Cap

The CIS asked respondents, if the increase of the maximum amount allowed by the IRS for the transit portion of tax-free commuter benefits had any impact on their company. More than one quarter of employers said that enrollment in the program increased while 39 percent said employees who were already participating increased their pretax deductions.  Enrollment increased, especially for larger companies (37 percent) and companies located in New York (33 percent).

It also became clear that smaller businesses were excited about the new cap. One third of employees among these companies increased their deduction over the previous cap of $120 after the new law took effect.

When Fares Increase Commuter Benefits Help Cushion the Blow

The current economy is forcing transit agencies across the country to lay off employees, increase fares and/or reduce service. New York metropolitan area commuters are being hit with a second major fare increase in the past two years; the first in New York in 2009 and now in New Jersey, where commuters are seeing up to a 25 percent increase in their cost to get to work.

 When transit fares go up, we see increases in the number of companies and employees turning to commuter benefits to avoid the full impact of additional costs. When the cost of a monthly pass goes over $120, it’s thanks to the $230 transit cap limit that many more employees can reduce their commuting costs.

If Congress fails to act to extend the current $230 cap limit or make the cap permanent, it will revert to pre-stimulus levels of $120 per month.  For many of us, this will create a “double-whammy” of rising fares and lower commuter benefit savings.

Daniel Neuburger is President and CEO of TransitCenter, Inc., a nonprofit organization supporting mass transit ridership and a leading provider of tax-free commuter benefit programs, nationwide.

Each year National Train Day aims to remind the public of the many benefits of rail travel.  Over the last 141 years, technology has changed transportation in the United States with automobiles and airplanes becoming major modes of travel.  However, rail travel has withstood the test of time and still provides many benefits that other modes of transportation cannot fulfill. In honor of National Train Day we are taking a look at some great reasons to ride the rails:

Save a buck (or more!) – Rail travel is more cost efficient than other modes of transportation.  According to Amtrak’s Critical Link 2007, the American Automobile Association estimated that the average cost of car travel is 62 cents per mile and, depending on the type of automobile, as high as 74 cents per mile.  In comparison, the average cost of an Amtrak trip is only 23 cents per mile.

Skip rush hour – According to Amtrak’s 2007 Highway and Airport Congestion Mitigation report, some American drivers lose more than 93 hours per year sitting in traffic. In 1955, there were 65 million vehicles on U.S. highways. Today there are 246 million and by 2055 this number is expected to reach 400 million.  Taking the train is a simple way to avoid this congestion and reach your final destination more quickly.

Save the planet – Taking the train is a greener way to travel.   Passenger rail travel is 20 percent more efficient than airline travel and 28 percent more efficient than automobile travel.  For those looking to reduce their environmental footprint, commuting to work is a great way to start.

Relax! – Many people find that rail travel is the most relaxing mode of transportation.  No need to worry about traffic congestion, security lines or luggage restrictions, people can kick up their feet and take some time for themselves.

Meet new friends – Train travel is the most interactive form of travel and many use it as an opportunity to meet new people, experience different cultures and make friends.  Long-distance trains generally have dining cars, where people can share tables and exchange stories, all while traveling to their destination.

Finally for many people alternate modes of transportation are simply not an option.  According to Amtrak’s Critical Link 2007, 16 percent of Amtrak passengers do not own a car.  Furthermore, one in five Americans age 65 and older does not drive, and the number of people aged 65 and older is expected to more than double between 2002 and 2030. For those who do not have other means to get around, rail travel is a way of life.

On May 8 Amtrak will host free events from 11:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. in four of its gateway stations across the United States: Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles, all designed to help people discover the rail way. These large-scale events will feature live entertainment, interactive and educational exhibits, kids’ entertainment, model train displays and tours of notable private railroad cars, Amtrak equipment, freight and commuter trains.

Additionally, Amtrak will be joined by this year’s national spokesman, actor and avid train fan Taye Diggs, star of Private Practice. Taye will start the weekend’s festivities with a ceremony at New York’s Penn Station on Friday, May 7, and will board Amtrak immediately following the event to travel to Washington, D.C. to host the National Train Day celebration at Union Station and enjoy the festivities with other train fans on Saturday, May 8.

In addition, local communities across the country have developed their own National Train Day celebrations. So far more than 150 local celebrations are planned at rail stations, museums and other locations around the country. To find an event near you, visit www.nationaltrainday.com, “like” us on Facebook www.facebook.com/nationaltrainday, or follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/natltrainday.

For tens of millions in the United States, mass transit is a fundamental part of daily living. Commuters can spend 10 percent or more of their workday riding transit and $1,000 per year.  From another perspective, mass transit is also important.  It is probably the most socially inclusive activity Americans participate in and, to that extent, is something of a great equalizer.  Billionaires and the homeless, immigrants and Daughters of the Revolution all “hang on the strap.”

A key part of mass transit is the payment process and as proprietary fare systems become obsolete, municipalities and transit authorities are looking for new payment systems to meet the needs of constituents and budgets.  A tendency might be to turn to legacy payment schemes — e.g. Visa and MasterCard — because of their marketing presence and influence, but these types of traditional payment schemes are inadequate solutions for transit payments for several reasons:

• Traditional cards (credit, bank debit, pre-paid Visa and MasterCard) are inaccessible or prohibitively costly for a large constituency of riders, namely the unbanked and under-banked, which can represent 50 percent of ridership. Pre-paid cards come with numerous fees, including activation, monthly maintenance and non-activity fees. In addition, pre-paid cards do not eliminate the need for unbanked consumer’s need for other fee-based financial services provided by currency exchanges such as check cashing and bill payment. The combined total of these fees vastly exceed the cost of a bank account, especially given the fact that the majority (62 percent) of low-income households never bounce a check, according to the November 2008 FDIC Study on Overdrafts.
• They cannot support the dynamic and often complex fare structures of transit authorities, e.g., seniors, students, military and pre-tax.
• They are built around magnetic stripes, which are too slow to meet the existing and growing throughput needs of transit. A benchmark of 350 milliseconds or less was cited in an October 2009 “Payments Sourcw” report on London’s transit throughput needs. This is not only way too fast for magnetic stripes, but also too fast for even Visa and MasterCard European contactless cards. Mass transit needs to move millions of people in a couple of short bursts each day.
• They contain sensitive financial data. Cards were designed in an off-line, mechanical world where this data needed to be on the card and facilitate carbon imprints — and this model has not changed much since. Whether in this data magnetic stripe, on chips or embossed right on the card, the traditional card will always be vulnerable to compromise at attended turnstiles and vending machines, and while fraud may not be a major issue in transit, the liability of stolen card data is. This was the case with TJ Maxx stores, which recorded a $118,000,000 charge due to a data breach.
• They are expensive. Securing data will remain a perpetual cat-and-mouse game fought by escalating technology costs on cards and readers; interchange will only rise, various and sundry fees will be introduced and re-introduced raising the cost for both riders and transit authorities.

Furthermore, there is evidence that legacy payment schemes and bank card issuers are interested in transit payments to get contactless cards into people’s hands to reduce their own fraud losses in the broader retail market and to use contactless chips as a mechanism to steer all payments into their preferred networks, namely signature-based transactions. This was evidenced recently by Best Buy’s cancellation of contactless Visa cards, which automatically routed any contactless Visa transaction into Visa’s own signature-based network, as opposed to a lower cost PIN debit transaction.

These should not be transit’s problem, not their job to solve and not their financial obligation to fund — it is a false choice between proprietary, closed-loop payments and Visa- and MasterCard-backed payment schemes.

Fortunately there are the successful transit payment systems, e.g., Hong Kong and London, which provide insight. Both systems have avoided the legacy payment schemes. In the case of Hong Kong, even in the face of direct competition from global behemoths Visa and MasterCard, the Octopus payment solution prevailed and has captured more than 95 percent market share. Both systems are built around contactless fare media and make card acquisition and reloading convenient. Both systems can be used on multiple modes of transportation and even Hong Kong has successfully opened up its payment platform to serve the broader retail market.

Newer, more efficient, secure and flexible solutions exist that do not shift the structural flaws and costs of card payment schemes onto transit authorities or merchants in general. The ideal payment solution will:

• Issue accounts to both banked and unbanked consumers
• Be agnostic to fare media form factor
• Be account-centric, not card-centric, which offers numerous advantages including (1) keeps cost of card down, (2) does not require financial data to reside on card, (3) allows transit authorities to more easily migrate fare media as they see fit (e.g. mobile).
• Allow accounts to be topped-up in a store, on the Internet or from mobile devices, or they can be linked to a bank account for low-cost debit processing outside the legacy credit card network.
• Provide for contactless RFID and magnetic stripe fare media to broaden its acceptance and increase its utility. Logical extensions would include bill payment and frequently visited stores.
• Ensure that transactions can be authorized in batch or real time, reflecting the physical realities of mass transit and have no sensitive financial data is resident on the fare media or transmitted through a network.

The ideal mass transit payment solution will provide a cost-effective solution for riders, transit authorities, contiguous (non-contiguous) transit modes and surrounding retail merchants.

Conrad Sheehan is the founder and CEO of mPayy, an alternative payment system enabling secure, efficient payment processing for consumers and businesses.

Beginning this week, commuters in Central Texas have another transportation option from which to choose: the Capital MetroRail Red Line, which began service on Monday, March 22, with a week of free service. First-day boardings exceeded our expectations by nearly 50 percent.

The Capital MetroRail Red Line is a 32-mile system with nine stations using existing trackbed. The commuter line travels between Leander, through northwest, central and east Austin into downtown. Built for less than $5 million per mile, it is one of the most economically built systems in the country for the state-of-the-art features it employs.

Six diesel multiple unit vehicles manufactured by Stadler Bussnang provide incredible safety features, such as state-of-the-art crash energy management systems and passenger amenities. Tray back tables, luggage racks, free Wi-Fi, plush high-back seats, and bike hooks make for a positive rider experience. The system also includes dynamic message boards at stations and onboard trains, and a new Centralized Traffic Control system. Railroad quiet zones have been established to reduce noise pollution through neighborhoods.

Because the system uses existing tracks that will still be used by freight trains — 32 miles of our 163-mile short line, the Llano to Giddings railroad — temporal separation is an important component of the system. As a commuter line, the three northernmost stations accommodate parking for 1,300 cars. At the southern end, two stations incorporate rail connector bus routes designed to be an extension of the train ride to deliver passengers to final destinations downtown and at the University of Texas. These quick bus routes meet the train at the station and drop off passengers at dense employment centers and the university within 10 minutes. Thus far, the rail connector routes are being well-used. More than two-thirds of riders deboarding at the MLK, Jr. Station are using one of two connectors that meet there.

Given a skeptical community and in the wake of an unsuccessful light rail referendum in 2000, the MetroRail project was, by design, limited in scope. Using an existing rail line with only modest upgrades, limiting the number and length of sidings (or double track sections), constraining station size and budget, and buying a starter fleet of only six trainsets all contributed to the highly cost-effective nature of the project. These characteristics allowed for low cost and relatively quick startup, and may be a winning combination for similarly situated cities nationwide. Of course, these benefits are not without consequences, and it should be acknowledged that the level and quantity of service are constrained at the outset by the modest investment levels in the system. Fortunately the system was designed with expansion in mind and plans for doing so are in the works.

MetroRail’s successful launch was the result of the collaborative efforts of Capital Metro, the Federal Railroad Administration and our rail operations and maintenance partner, Herzog Transit Services, Inc., and their subcrontractors.

The development of MetroRail did experience challenges, however. We delayed the system for nearly a full year to address system components that were not functioning as they were intended. A commitment to cost and schedule very early in the process, before all engineering and planning had been completed, created problems for us early on. The design was enhanced with a Centralized Traffic Control system, but integrating that system with the other signal technologies being employed on the line was more complex than had been anticipated and staffed for. We brought in new expertise and better oversight to the project, and signed on a new MetroRail provider, Herzog Transit Services, Inc. With only a few months until our opening date, Herzog spread across our line like army ants, conducting an intensive analysis of the entire line, and systematically attacking and correcting the remaining problems.

The year-long delay was not without benefit. The Centralized Traffic Control System had been designed to operate in two modes, one for our freight operations, the other for MetroRail operations. Sensing that shifting between modes could be a weakness to the operation, the FRA asked that we consider redesigning the system to eliminate the possibility of human error initiating a shift between modes incorrectly, potentially creating dangerous results. We agreed, and subsequently took the time and effort to redesign and reprogram our entire signal network to put a safer system in place — one that we are more confident of and one that will reduce the potential of problems as we begin operating both freight and passenger service on the same track.

With the design modifications complete and the right team assembled, the FRA gave us final clearance to begin passenger service. Of course, Capital MetroRail is just the beginning. With full trains and demands for all-day and weekend service even prior to the first day of service, we will continue planning for expansion even before the trains lose their new car luster.

Capital Metro employees and volunteers are staffing all nine stations for the first two weeks to assist new riders and ensure they have a good first experience. Beginning March 29, valid fares will be required, and a one-way fare from end to end is $3. Capital Metro will celebrate its successful launch of commuter rail on March 27 with a commemorative “Safety Train” ride of community officials and area students who have participated in our rail safety education program and a dedication ceremony at the Downtown Station.

We are savoring this historic moment for our transit agency and our community of bringing the first modern passenger rail system to this area. Our startup is going smoothly and now we are looking ahead to expansion of the service to meet the needs of our growing region.

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.

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.

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.

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