Friday, January 20, 2012

Six months riding Trimet and Counting...

It has been about six months since I moved to Portland, about 3 months since I updated you on my travels on the Trimet System. Last time my travel was pretty straight forward: Take the 54 and 57 to work, then ride MAX, WES and 78 to PCC Sylvania and back home on the 44 or I would ride MAX, the 6, and 44 to PCC. After Christmas, my life completely changed and I am always riding the 44 to PCC and back but my work schedule has me traveling a lot more which you can see from the number of buses I have rode down below.


Here is a rundown of the rail vehicles I have traveled on:

Manufacturer Information:    # In Fleet      #Ridden       Most Ridden and Notes

1986 Bombardier                    26                 23             107 and 116 (7 Times Each)
*The three I have not ridden 106, 119, and 126 I have never seen them either so not sure if they are still in service, being repainted since many of these cars are getting new paint schemes or just missing them.
1997 Siemens SD660              52                 50              245 (4 Times)
2003 Siemens SD660              27                 All 27         303, 308, 309, 314, 325 (5 Times)
2009 Siemens S70                   22                 20              410 (3 Times)
Streetcars                               10                 All 10          7 (4 Times)
Colorado Railcar Power DMU   3                  All 3            1001 (21 Times)
Colorado Railcar Trailer            1                  1                  Once
Ex-Alaska RDC's                     2                  2                 Once Each                                          


Now for the bus fleet:

Year:    Manufacturer/Model    # in Fleet    #Ridden       Most Ridden and other notes:

1990    Gillig Phantom 40'             63?           18            1420, 1422, 1430, 1458, 1459 (Twice)
*Not sure how many of these are actually still running.
1990    Gillig Phantom 30'             43             12            1609 Twice
1992    Flxible Metro 40'              107           47             1738 (4 Times)
1994    Flxible Metro 40'              26             17             1821 (4 Times)
1992    Flxible Metro 30'              10             9               Each one only once
1997    New Flyer D40LF            22             7               2016 Twice
1997    Gillig Phantom 40'             65             50             2139 (5 Times)
*These are buses normally assigned to the 44 Monday-Friday so its no surprise that I ridden them so many times.
1998    New Flyer D40LF            118           33             2202, 2206, 2210, 2246 (Twice)
2000    New Flyer D40LF            60             16             2518, 2526, 2560 (Twice)
2002    New Flyer H40LF            2               0            
2002    New Flyer D40LF            55             38             2632 (Three Times)
2003    New Flyer D40LF            25             16              2715 and 2719 (Twice)
2005    New Flyer D40LF            39             16              2807, 2825, 2834 (Twice)
2009    New Flyer D40LFR          40             All 40        2908 (6 Times)
*Since these are the regular buses assigned to the 54 and 57 and sometimes the 78, its no wonder I was able to ride all them over a six month period.
 

Although I have a very love/hate relationship with low floor buses:: easier to get on and off, faster wheelchair loading, however they loose capacity, are not the comfortable to ride in, and are not that well put together, I will have to say that the D40LFR's from 2009 do seem to making some headway quality wise.



While Trimet may be a bus fans paradise with the large number of Flexible Metro's still around, Trimet  does have an aging fleet and with Flxible having been out of business for almost 17 years now, I imagine that some parts are now becoming difficult to get. Trimet does have 55 diesel buses on order along with 4 hybrids which are coming from Gillig.

While Trimet has many haters out there including many of its own bus drivers, as a passenger I have to say for the most part Trimet has done an excellent job. Only once has there been a bus break down that affected me and that was when I was still riding the 54 westbound and one of them broke down leaving the garage. However, Trimet while the 54 is run out of the Merlo garage on the westside, they pulled a bus out of the Central Garage on the near east side and the bus was only running a few minutes late.

The only other incident actually worked to my benefit. One of the 1992 Flxible 30' Metros was overheating and it caused the bus to run about 10 minutes late which meant I did not have to way 20 minutes for the next bus to arrive.


Drivers on the other hand are a mix bag. Trimet does have some excellent drivers. I have sent in commendations to Trimet on two of its drivers. The first one was a driver on the 54 who is now working the 67. This person has a wonderful personality, knows how to treat customers, and was always a pleasure to ride with. Sadly the replacement on the 54 has not lived up to him.

The other driver I sent in a commendation for was on the 44. This person is extremely friendly with a wise cracking personality that works perfectly for the clientele on the 44. I rode with him a few times when I needed to make trips to downtown before heading to PCC from Beaverton.

There is only one driver I have come close to filing a complaint about. This person shows a lack of personality when you board the bus and this person gives you a look like the driver would rather cut your throat than have you on the bus. This person never says a word, just gives you the dirty look. If a customer asks this person a question the customer is luck if they get a grunt.

I always try to wish the driver a good day, afternoon, etc. when I get off the bus if the bus is not extremely crowded. One time when getting of the bus I gave this driver the standard good day and I actually got a response of the driver!! The driver say "whatever." I guess its better than a something else the person could have said.

I have ridden with this person on a couple of routes so the person must be extra board. Clearly this is someone who needs to find a job where they do not have to deal with the public.





On Tuesday, I had my first encounter of adverse weather conditions on Trimet. Once again Trimet did what it was supposed to do and provided the best possible service under less than ideal conditions. Below is a picture of my 44 to PCC Sylvania on that day.

In fact the bus had to get around several cars that got stuck along Capital Hwy. and SW 49th. The driver did a great job and we arrived at our destination in good time.


In interesting note is that this was my first time every riding a transit bus with chains. The Utah Transit Authority I believe uses chains on its ski buses when conditions are bad but since I am not a skier, I never rode the buses to the ski conditions.

Another interesting note is the bus pictured above is equipped with automatic chains that engage with the flip of a toggle switch. The driver said these buses are the only ones equipped with them. I wonder if these were an add on order from another transit agency (add on orders is when a transit agency adds a bus order to another agencies order to get a better price on buses).


After six months of regularly Trimet, I can say that Trimet does what it is supposed to. Provide the best possible service to the most riders possible with the budget given them. I encounter many people in my travels that want to whine about one thing or another when it comes to Trimet, but overall service does the job it is supposed to.

Is Trimet a perfect agency? Of course not, there is issues that need to be fixed but it does its job well.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Sustainability with Survive-ability

OTSUCHI, JAPAN - MARCH 19:  In this handout im...Image by Getty Images via @daylife
When we look at any development project or even a major rehabilitation, we often look at how transit oriented a project may be, or how sustainable the project should be, but how often do we look at how survivable a building will be? The thought of making a building survivable may scare some people, and developers and bean counters will start adding up the cost, but the question is, should we be taking survive-ability into account when looking at projects?

Lets take a look at the Portland, Oregon region. How many buildings in Portland are going to survive the next time the Cascadia subduction zone has a major earthquake? How many people will die because the buildings they live and work in are not designed to handle the stresses of a major earthquake?

Those of us who grew up in Southern California probably don't even bat an eye with the thought of an earthquake. However, the earthquake in Japan last year should be a wake up call. The country of Japan has prepared for years for major earthquakes and tsunami's yet still was not prepared for the devastation caused by twin disasters last year. In fact most experts thought that type of earthquake could not happen in that part of Japan but they were proven wrong.

Of course what are the chances of a major earthquake hitting the Portland area or any area for that matter. The Portland area has been hit by subduction zone earthquakes on a regular basis for thousands of years, we are talking earthquakes of 9+ of the Richter scale. The average between earthquakes is around 250 years although there has been breaks of 500 years between earthquakes but the last one was about 10,000 years ago. When did the last earthquake like this hit the area? In a few days we will pass 312 years since the last major subduction zone earthquake hit.

But lets not look at just the Portland region, any area that is a geological or meteorological hazard site needs to look at survive-ability when it comes to construction zones. Of course let us not forget that one of the worse earthquakes in recorded US history did not occur in the western U.S. but instead in the mid-west and our most recent earthquake hit the east coast.

But other areas of the country are prone to natural disasters on a regular basis and how prepared are we?

The problem is, developers are looking to make the most money (nothing wrong with that except that when it comes into conflict with how safe an area is). In Salt Lake City, or the city of Draper to be exact homes have been built on a hill of sand that is already is causing stability issues for many homes and will be extremely dangerous when an earthquake hits that area. Further developers are allowed to build subdivisions in areas with only one escape route on the side of a mountain so that if a wild fire hits with little warning people may end up trapped with no escape.

Here is a link from the Portland City Club that had a presentation on emergency preparedness. The first presenter is Chris Goldfinger who happened to be a conference when the Japan earthquake hit. The video is about an hour long but offers some interesting insights on what will happen in the Portland region:
http://www.pdxcityclub.org/content/risks-and-potential-nuclear-energy.

The second presenter Chris Higgins (Dr. Doom), makes an interesting observation about a small item that makes all homes safer in the event of an earthquake: The Northridge Valve. It is a device that will shut off natural gas to a home when an earthquake hits. He points out that they are not required in Oregon but our neighbors in California and Washington do require them. A less than $50.00 item that could save countless lives is not required in Oregon.

Few parts of the country are immune to one disaster or another. However, how often do we take survive-ability into account when looking at developments and rehabilitation's?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, November 06, 2011

Renumbering for Customer Friendliness

Two 1991-built, 30-foot Gillig buses of TriMet...Image via Wikipedia
Since I know live in Portland, Oregon I will probably use TriMet here as an example of many of my postings just like I did with Utah Transit Authority when I lived there. I will also use other transit agencies I am familiar with such as Metro in Los Angeles and Spokane Transit Authority in Spokane. However, I will not try to step on the toes of Portland Transport, an excellent transit related blog that does a great job of covering news in the area.

TriMet like many agencies still have a antiquated number system part of which is descended from its predecessor agencies. The number system is a hog pog of numbers that don't tell the person much information about the service.

However, many agencies have created new number systems to make their route numbers make it easier for customers to understand the system. The late Southern California Rapid Transit District in Los Angeles was one of the first agencies to do this. From the late 70's through 1983 the RTD renumber all its routes so a person only had to look at the number to know if the bus traveled to downtown Los Angeles or if not if traveled primarily north-south, east-west or if it was express bus or something else.

Meanwhile Jarrett over at Human Transit talked about creating a number system that told you the frequency of the routes.

Lets use these concepts to see how you can renumber a transit system to make it more customer friendly and easier to use. Of course there is always the people who don't like it when routes change, but in the long run what is most important that it would make the transit system more customer friendly for all the riders.

Here is a sample numbering system for TriMet:

100 Series Routes-Frequent Service Routes that service downtown Portland
200 Series Routes-Frequent Service Routes that do not serve downtown Portland west of the Willamette
300 Series Routes-Frequent Service Routes that do not serve downtown Portland east of the Willamette
400 Series Routes-30/60 Minute Service Routes that serve downtown Portland
500 Series Routes-30/60 Minute Service Routes west of the Willamette not serving downtown
600 Series Routes-30/60 Minute Service Routes east of the Willamette not serving downtown
700 Series Routes-Limited Service Routes
800 Series Routes-Express Service Routes
900 Series Routes-Special Service such as routes that run peak hours only

Those familiar with TriMet will know that there is only one route in the 200 series and only a few more in the 300 series but the point is to make the system easy to understand. You could combine both of those into the 200 series and adopt from their.

In addition there is one odd ball route which is the current 154. It starts at the Oregon Transit Center then travels across the Willamette. You could put this route in the 500 series since most of its route is west of the Willamette or in the 600 series since its connection with the rest of the network is at Oregon City.

Also, TriMet currently has no limited service routes but this is an example and in the future TriMet should look at instituting limited stop service on busy corridors which is something I will be posting about in the future.

While you could argue semantics, this is a general renumber system that would make a system more customer friendly and easier to use. It could be adapted by any agency to not only designate where a bus goes but also the frequency of route.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Numbers for the geeks...

Bus 2909 of TriMet, the public transit agency ...Image via Wikipedia
Its been three months since I moved to Portland and started regularly riding TriMet. Since I am a numbers guy I like to keep track of the number of vehicles I ride and how many times I ride them. Not sure if anyone really would care about these numbers except for fans, but here goes.

The routes I ride most often are: 44, 54, 57, 78, MAX, and WES.


Model Information and number:                         Number Ridden:              Most ridden:

Buses:
    
1990 Gillig Phantom 40'     63 buses                  11 Ridden                       1458 (twice)
(not all left in service)
1990/91 Gillig Phantom 30' 43 buses                 None
1992 Flxible Metro    40'    108 buses               15 Ridden                       1738 and 1756 (twice)
(not all in service)
1994 Flxible Metro   40'     26 buses                 7 Ridden                         1821 (twice)
1992 Flxible Metro   30'     10 buses                 None
1997 New Flyer D40LF     22 buses                 4 Ridden                         None more than once
1997 Gillig Phantom           65 buses                 20 Ridden                       5 of them ridden twice
1998 New Flyer D40LF    118 buses                4 Ridden                         None more than once
2000 New Flyer D40LF     60 buses                 2 Ridden                         None more than once
2002 New Flyer DE40LF     2 buses                 None
2002 New Flyer D40LF      55 buses                8 Ridden                         None more than once
2003 New Flyer D40LF      25 buses                9 Ridden                         None more than once
2005 New Flyer D40LF      39 buses                9 Ridden                         2825 Twice
2009 New Flyer D40LFR   40 buses                32 Ridden                       2936 (5 Times)

Rail Vehicles:

1986 Bombardier                26 vehicles           16 Ridden                        116 and 122 (4 times)
1997 Siemens SD660         52 vehicles            22 Ridden                        245 (three times)
2003 Siemens SD660         27 vehicles             9 Ridden                         308 (three times)
2009 Siemans S70              22 vehicles            5 Ridden                          409 (twice)

Colorado Railcar Power        3 vehicles            2 Ridden                          1001 (7 Times)
Colorado Railcar Trailers      1 vehicle              not ridden
RDC's                                  2 vehicles            not ridden

(sorry the columns did not come out properly).

As you can see from the numbers since I ride the 44, 54, and 57 most often on the bus side the buses assigned to those lines (the '97 Gilligs to the 44 and the 2009 DL40LFRs to the 54 and 57) are the ones I have ridden the most.

I ride WES once per day two or three times per week and it seems like every time I get the 1001. I have never been in a RDC before and I am hopping to ride those this Friday if scheduling works out.

If anyone knows how many of the older buses and the Bombardier cars are still in service, I would be interested in finding out.    

I plan to update this as time goes on.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, October 02, 2011

To go into the transit center or not go into the transit center...

A 40-foot (12 m) Flxible-built bus of TriMet, ...Image via Wikipedia
I have seen a lot of comments lately on different blogs on whether transit lines should deviate or not deviate into a transit center.

The Seattle Transit blog has an article about the new Edmonds transit center which discusses this issue.

There is two general thoughts on this issue: One thought is that all buses should deviate into a transit center and the other train of thought is that through routed buses should not if it is not a far walk from the transit center.

The people who have the latter opinion generally feel that deviating to a transit station slows down the route too much and wastes precious time. As always you need to take more into consideration than looking a things in just black and white.

Lets use the TriMet's Barbur transit center as an example and how to evaluate if routes should be deviated to the transit center.

Currently the only full time TriMet route that services the Barbur transit center is TriMets marathon route the 12 from Sherwood to Gresham. It is also served by SMART from Wilsonville along with rush hour routes 64 and 94.

Two routes come close to the transit center but do not service it: Route 43 makes a turn in front of the transit center from Barbur Blvd to Taylors Ferry Road while route 44, a route I am now taking every day goes by one block away.

For anyone that is familiar with the area, you know that this area is not pedestrian friendly in anyway shape or form. In fact I have never walked in the area, I have only traveled through it either by car or bus.

Here is a good map of the area:


View Larger Map

Here is some things to take into consideration when deciding whether a transit route should be deviated into a transit center or not:

1. How easy will be for riders to transfer from one route to another without deviating? In this case with the pedestrian hostile environment in this area making transfers from the routes that service the transit to route that don't is not pleasant.

If the transit center is in a pedestrian friendly environment, walks from one route to another is not a major problem. However, many transit centers tend to be in suburban areas that make walking away from a transit less friendly than a transit center located in a downtown area.

2. Would ridership be increased by deviating the routes? For this purpose using Barbur is probably not the best example since the 44 parralles the 12 within a mile or two for most of its route and then joins the 12 on Barbur after it leaves Capital Highway.

However, Route 44 is one of only two bus routes that service the largest of Portland's Community College campus at Sylvania. By rerouting the 44 into the transit center it would allow more convenient transfers from the PCC campus to the 12 for those traveling along the Barbur corridor plus allow direct connections from the 44 to SMART. The connection from the 44 to the 12 will not be a big factor but the one to SMART will be.

Then there is the route 43 that travels from downtown to Washington Square Mall. This route only runs Monday through Friday and is not one of TriMet's better performers. Because of the nature of the 43 route, rerouting through the transit center will not adversely affect its schedule but it does have the possibility of increasing ridership by improving connections from the 43 to SMART and also the 12.

3. The third factor which is what many anti-deviation people focus on is the time loss for routes to deviate into the transit center.

This mainly becomes a concern for trunk routes and express routes.

In the case of the 12 little time is loss with the deviation to the transit center. The routes travels right past the transit center and looses probably less than a minute or two serving it. In addition ridership would be negatively affected if riders had to walk across Barbur Blvd to reach the transit center.

To give an example of route that should not be rerouted to service the transit center is the 96. This route travels right pass the transit center on Interstate 5. While the southbound on ramp to the interstate is just a block away from the transit center, the 96 would have to get off of the freeway at the Terwilliger exit and travel an extended period on Barbur to reach the transit center. Northbound the connections would even be worse and would adversely affect the lines performance.

As I mentioned above loosing one or two minutes would not adversely affect the 43 or the 44 for that matter since they are not major corridor routes (that's not to say they are not busy because the 44 is a very busy route).

4. Its location, location, location...

One of the most important points when it comes to this subject is the location of the transit center. Is centrally located where the largest number of bus routes can conveniently access it without adversely affecting its running time. Of course transit center locations are often chosen from a host of other reasons that do not put riders first from cost, NIMBYism, sweat heart deals, and of course politics.

When it comes to deviating routes to a transit center you need to take into consideration how easy would it be for riders to walk to routes that don't directly deviate into the transit center,  the potential ridership of making convenient connections, time factors and location.

The ultimate decision needs to rest on whats best for the customer and what will encourage people to ride.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, September 22, 2011

This Week at Amtrak

Vistas desde el Lago Eola, Downtown Orlando, F...Image by Jordi Gomara (itaca2000) via FlickrFrom the United Rail Passenger Alliance:

This Week at Amtrak, Vol. 8, No. 16
Volume 8, Number 16

From the Editors…

Now that the passenger rail future of Florida is coming into focus, This Week reviews how we got here.

A Tale of Two Rails

High-Speed Rail-you didn’t let that stop you…Central Florida got its act together and look at what is happening–SunRail is coming.” - U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood at the groundbreaking for SunRail, July 18, 2011

As most of our readers are aware, everyone involved in producing This Week at Amtrak has an inextricable link to the Sunshine State. Obviously, the passenger railroading world does not revolve around Florida. Even so, in a place where our usual entertainment is either watching one of our fellow citizens defend himself in court or watching the foreigners attempt to navigate our roads, our rail on-goings are a welcome change. In just the last year, two projects have been run through the meat grinder known as the court of public opinion. The final outcomes could not have been any different. Up until now, we at This Week have been loathe to mention SunRail and Florida HSR in the same sentence due to the mass perception that a rail is a rail. Therefore, yet again we beg the indulgence of our readers, as we take This Week back home for one more issue. The time has come to make the difference profoundly clear.

A “FOX” By Any Other Name

Florida had been seriously talking about linking some of our largest cities with high-speed trains since the energy crisis of 1973. In April 1982, Florida established a High-Speed Rail Committee to investigate the potential of HSR in the State. At the time, elected officials firmly believed such improvements would be funded by private investment; yet even, then many questions were raised:

“Are sufficient transit infrastructures available (or planned) to feed the rail system? Would tourists, many of whom now come in by car from out of State, switch modes once in Florida? Could other tourists be induced to ride the train with the current cost, service, and convenience factors provided by competing modes? Would private capital be sufficient to cover a project of that magnitude? Are there transportation alternatives that might better meet the State’s needs?” - U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-222, December 1983).

It was not until the following decade that all of these efforts crystallized into the initiative to be known as the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX):

“Introducing the FOX…a fully integrated 21st century, high speed travel system combining proven European TGV train technology with American engineering, management, and construction expertise to provide Florida with a safe, reliable and environmentally sensitive world class transportation system.” - Florida Overland eXpress brochure , 21st Century Travel, May 1996

The undertaking was as grand as the times we were living in. Truth be told, the 1990s were a great time to be alive. The Northeast was in line to get high-speed trains, and it was believed Florida would come in second in this friendly race, which was more than acceptable, since we were starting from scratch.

“Florida Overland eXpress - Initial and Projected Future Routes

Our initial route responds to the State’s request and will provide service between Miami and Orlando and between Orlando and Tampa. FOX service may eventually be extended into Fort Lauderdale, downtown Orlando, and St. Petersburg. After the main portion of the system is underway, service may also be extended to Jacksonville and then to other parts of Florida.” - Florida Overland eXpress brochure, Executive Summary, May 1996

With the State of Florida continuing to grow with no abatement in sight, it seemed only natural to enhance State infrastructure to meet future demands. The initial and future route regimen was simple and attainable; and then politics intervened. Within two years, the proposed route map exploded with high-speed routes running amok through every corner of the state. This phantasm along with its bloated price tag was mercifully put out of its misery by then-Governor Bush before the end of 1998, yet this was by no means the end.

What transpired over the next 10 years is what we here refer to as “high-end entertainment.” In 2000, the voting public approved an amendment to State constitution, mandating the establishment of a system of high-speed trains. The Florida High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) was created the following year. Although State funds for HSRA were vetoed by the Governor, Federal funds kept it afloat; efforts in planning a system continued. In 2004, the voting public approved a repeal of the high-speed train amendment, but the HSRA continued to meet, and completed the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the route between Tampa and Orlando. Ah, but now there was no more funding, and it seemed all for naught; yet, this is Florida, after all, and nothing is ever as it seems.

In 2009, the clarion call went out all over the land for High-Speed Rail. This call was answered in many corners of the country, but ultimately only two of the responses were close to plausible: California, which had its own long history of pursuing HSR; and Florida, which had its own EIS. As a result, Florida became the front runner for establishing, for the first time in the Western Hemisphere, a true high-speed railroad; even if it was only to be 84 miles long. The overall usability of the line was not the point, but rather the establishment of the ground rules for further HSR around the country.

Unfortunately, this was no longer the 1990s. Those halcyon days were long past, and the pale of a new era was only beginning to be understood by the masses. Florida, especially, was coming to grips with this new era. The 20-year boom era of about 1985 to 2005 had given way to bust and freefall. Most insidious of the boom days were the final few years, where real estate values skyrocketed on speculation, and home builders built houses for buyers who did not yet exist, but who they were sure would come. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it was plain that the prospective buyers were not coming. Millions of dollars of new building would remain vacant or sell dirt cheap. The last thing the citizenry wanted to hear about was some fancy new fast train that might put it on the hook financially for some indefinite period of time. Hunger will have that kind of affect on people. Consequently, the project went back on the shelf in 2011.

It may sound duplicitous, but the writers were in favor of the FOX back in the 1990s. It was a good idea. It was something we could afford…at the time. Was it perfect? No. It did not serve the downtown areas of the cities it was meant to connect, but the hope was that it could, someday. The Florida HSR of 2009 followed the same basic idea. Why not support it now? There was absolutely no guarantee the monies would ever be available to connect into downtown, let alone extend to South Florida. Although the landscape looks familiar, the reality is that we are in a very different place now. With these changes come shifts in priorities, if not a shift in paradigm. We most certainly have gone from thriving to survival mode, and it looks like we will be here for the duration.

Here Comes the Sun [Rail]

As early as 1989, the possibility of commuter rail had been deliberated in Central Florida. Tri-Rail had begun operation two years earlier, and one proposal was to extend Tri-Rail from South Florida to Tampa and Orlando as a way to connect the state. Soon enough, Tri-Rail was experiencing its own tribulations; thus Central Florida would be on its own, and so was formed the Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority (CFCRA).

In 1992, the CFCRA released its Project Feasibility Report which was all-inclusive of various forms of transit including light rail, commuter rail, and an increased number of buses to facilitate travel in and around the greater Orlando area. The commuter rail component received Federal authorization in 1998 as part of the Central Florida Rail System in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). In 2000, the light-rail portion was scrapped. In 2006 the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and CSX, the owner of the existing track in Orlando, agreed on the purchase of 61.5 miles of track between DeLand and Poinciana. For $432 million, the State gets the right-of-way, and pays CSX to increase capacity on the parallel freight line through Ocala for the anticipated traffic which will now bypass Orlando.

Perhaps it was ignorance; perhaps it was an attempt to curry favor. For whatever reason, FDOT committed a huge blunder in 2008 when it entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Amtrak regarding maintenance of commuter trains at its Sanford Auto Train facility. This would come around to bite FDOT almost two years later.

With the track through Orlando to become property of a State entity, liability for an accident would now be similar to that of any other public-owned conveyance: Limited. Such capped liability would also extend to CSX and the few freight trains that would be left. This did not sit well with many, and CSX ultimately agreed to shoulder “some of the cost of the state purchasing a liability policy. We wanted to help with them buying the type of policy they would need” and “we’re doing a similar thing up in Massachusetts where there were similar concerns about the liability issue. As a matter of fact, what we’re doing in Massachusetts and Florida is identical.” - interview with CSX CEO Mike Ward, Florida Times-Union, December 16, 2009

It did seem the whole thing might come to naught in 2009. The Great Recession hit central Florida rather hard, and many questioned the wisdom of spending scarce State cash on trains. Through two sessions of the State Senate, funding for commuter rail, now known as SunRail, was not forthcoming. But remember, this is Florida and nothing is ever as it seems. For the first and last time, an overt tie was made between commuter rail and high-speed rail. The Feds told the State that if the millions of dollars made available for commuter trains were not claimed, then the State could forget the billions of dollars made available for HSR. In an amazing turnaround, the State Senate met in a special session and passed the SunRail legislation.

Since its inception in 1971, Amtrak has carried it own indemnification for its operations over the tracks of other railroads. Even if Amtrak experienced an accident that was completely the fault of the host railroad, Amtrak would still be responsible for settlement. So it was something of a shock (even for those of us in Florida) when Amtrak claimed, in January of 2010, that FDOT was in violation of their MOU. Despite carrying its own indemnification, it pushed for an arrangement similar to that of CSX. For whatever reason, Amtrak believed it had a stake in the game because of a 1999 agreement with CSX regarding the long-distance passenger trains that run through what was to become State-owned property. Amtrak was deluded enough to believe it held the authority to scuttle the deal. At best, if Amtrak did not wish to recognize State ownership, at jeopardy were the two long-distance trains and the Auto Train which runs North out of Sanford. This was tantamount to sticking a gun to one’s own head and demanding “Do as I say or I’ll shoot.”

It took almost all year, but in December of 2010 Amtrak dropped its opposition to SunRail following an hour-long meeting in the office of U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, with soon-to-be-Chairman of the Transportation Committee, Florida’s own U.S. Representative John Mica, in attendance. Following this calibration, Amtrak issued a statement saying it had “long supported the SunRail project.” Hopefully, going forward, FDOT and SunRail will appreciate that they had best do without Amtrak’s support.

Of course, the rest is history. On January 28, 2011, newly-elected Governor Rick Scott put SunRail on hold in order to review the project. On February 26, 2011, he cancelled Florida HSR, citing concerns over possible future operating costs. Then came July 1, 2011, and the official go-ahead for SunRail followed by the official “ground breaking” on the property of Florida Hospital. The caterers expected 300 to attend, but there were at least 400. There was one protester, who did succeed in attaining his fifteen minutes of fame.

Many pundits believed the Governor would ax SunRail, since in their eyes all rails are created equal. State supporters of HSR mounted rallies and campaigns to stop SunRail. (Most people did not notice, since the airways were saturated with the trial of one of our denizens who was found guilty of parental antipathy which, as it turns out, is not a crime.) Five days before the governor’s decision, what can only be described as an embarrassment of journalism proffered by a will-write-for-food reporter appeared in the New York Times. Although starting off with “Here in sun-parched Central Florida,” the author obviously had no clue what Floridians are really about, as evidenced by describing SunRail in these terms: “It will not link to the Orlando airport or Disney World, among the region’s biggest traffic generators.” This is a slap in the face to those of us who actually live here, and the Grey Lady owes us an apology for printing such tripe.

SunRail is not purposed for the tourists, but rather for the locals. The New York Times made no mention of Florida Hospital or Orlando Regional Medical Center, two of the biggest employers and traffic generators in the City of Orlando. Their master plans; not their plans for future development, but their actual master plans as filed to the governments per State law; are contingent on SunRail. For example, a Florida Hospital station is to be provided by Florida Hospital according to its master plan, and Florida Hospital has already provided the infrastructure for it. During the ground breaking, the hospital announced the impending construction of a new administration building to be sited next to the future station site. This is a case where it will not be feasible to just deny the commuter train and build a road, instead. The whole "Medical City" concept will have to be reconsidered, with much of it already in the ground.

Unfortunately, with all this “rail” talk, the lines blurred. Most media outlets cannot tell the difference, with one even referring to “high-speed commuter rail.” Florida HSR did do some good in that it prompted enough elected non-stake holders outside the Orlando area to vote in favor of SunRail. Ultimately, Florida HSR failed because it was the purview of out-of-state interests who, once it served its purpose of setting the new standards for domestic HSR, could easily walk away, leaving it to the locals. The questions raised nearly 30 years earlier are still pertinent and remain inadequately answered. SunRail succeeded because it is from the locals. Local stakeholders understand it will have cascading benefits on other local interests such as engineering and construction companies, all of which are eager for work in our recession-ravaged state. The locals also understand that this is their baby, for which they will be responsible. Yes, Mr. Secretary, we did get our act together. SunRail is (finally) happening.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Adventures riding TriMet

The southeast side of the bus loop at the Beav...Image via Wikipedia

I just purchased my TriMet monthly pass for October, which is the third one I have purchased since moving to Portland in mid-July. It has been a few years since I have regularly commuted by transit since I could walk to my last job in Salt Lake so taking a transit trip was something special.

For the most part there is little to talk about on my commutes. My trips usually involve trips on bus and then connecting for a three station ride on MAX. I usually enjoy my first bus trip of the day because it is reverse commute to the Beaverton Transit Center and is not very busy. It is long enough that I can get some reading done before arriving at the transit center and connecting to MAX.

On my return trip I usually take MAX to the Goose Hollow station then ride the 6 down to Park in order to go pick up my mail.

For the most part, my commute is pretty routine which is a testament to how well TriMet does work despite the whining by some circles including some of its bus drivers. However every once in a while something will happen that will make the commute interesting and the last couple of days it has been on route 6 despite the fact I only ride it a few blocks.

Yesterday the incident was one that would get your blood pressure up and today's was one that makes you laugh. Yesterday the bus pulled up, and the doors opened. I always wait to see if anyone is getting off. There was one guy sitting near the front but he did not move so after a few seconds I started to board. The guy then starts yelling at me that he is getting off with a walker and why didn't I clear the way for him. I just moved around him and sat down. He then yelled at me some things that I will not repeat and got off the bus.

Then there was today. There was already a bus sitting in the bus stop area but he wasn't departing for 15 minutes. Another 6 came and pulled up behind him with the regular driver I usually have on this run. A Asian lady gets off the bus with when of those folding shopping carts. The problem is as you can see from the google view the bus cannot park perfect so there is always a gap between the bus door and the curb.


View Larger Map

As the lady gets off the bus she the small wheels on the back of her folding car come off. She starts yelling at one in particular in her native language, then walks to the wall on the other side of the sidewalk leaving her cart stuck between the bus door and curb.

The driver tries to shut the door to move the cart but it just fell back in. I guess he expected either me or the other passenger to move it but after a moment he put the parking brake on and moved the cart himself.

The bus pulled away with the lady just staring at her cart.

Starting Monday my journeys will become longer so I should have even more interesting encounter as a TriMet rider.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, September 17, 2011

This Week at Amtrak

Budd Pennsylvania Railroad Metroliner multiple...Image via Wikipedia
From the United Rail Passenger Alliance:

This Week at Amtrak, Vol. 8 No. 15
Volume 8, Number 15

From the Editors…

As sands through the hourglass, so are the history and future of passenger rail in America; unrelenting.

The Year Is…

“[A]s we all know, events must run their course before becoming history, so that all true history exists only by virtue of its conclusion, and begins its historical career from there.” - Anthropologist Germaine Tillion

Contemporary thinking: The belief in that which is, has always been; ergo, shall always be. Any historian worth his or her salt knows that history does not repeat itself, but does rhyme. The way it is is not the way it has always been, nor can we expect things to remain the same perpetually. Only the most indolent of our citizenry is unaware of the rapidly shifting social order now dawning on the national landscape. Therefore, let us return to where we have been in an effort to determine where we are going.*

*This newsletter contains forward-looking statements within the discretion of the prognostic abilities of the writers. Our forward-looking statements involve expectations, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, history, and flat-out guesses. The writers may be spot-on or completely out to lunch. Whatever the case, our readers may rest assured we will be there to document it.

The Year Is 1970

Just 245 days after man landed on the moon, the California Zephyr completed its final run on March 22, 1970. The California Zephyr was considered to be the last word in overland travel in America; perhaps the finest conveyance in the world, but now it was gone after a mere 21-year run. For most Americans this was just a passing of the torch, no different from the demise of the stagecoach or the interstate canal network, for the year is 1970; the Interstate Highway System now makes possible national travel on your schedule. Gasoline is a national-average 36 cents per gallon ($2.09 in 2011 dollars). Jobs are plentiful and so are automobiles. The only real limiting factor of mobility is one’s endurance.

The long road to this reality has been told to the point of being hackneyed. Following World War II, the nation became flush with largess by virtue of its infrastructure remaining intact. Even though the national treasury was empty as a result of the conflict, billions of dollars were “invented” to send to Europe and Japan to rebuild their societies. As a result, those billions of dollars came back to the United States in the form of orders for the material and machines necessary to rebuild. The American worker was a benefactor of this circular cash, giving the average citizen a buying potential unheard of in previous generations. It was the Federal Government which became the primary beneficiary. All of this national income resulted in higher tax revenues, and politicians were more than eager to spend it. The American population was now on a much more level plane than at any other time in human history. With no end in sight to our newfound avarice, there came experiments in socialization. One of these was the Interstate Highway System. While this was pleasing to the American public, it was a millstone around the neck of the American railroads.

With billions of dollars going to highways and roads during the 1950s and 1960s, railroads politicked and lobbied for some sort of Federal aid. They rightfully eschewed nationalization, but did hope for some funds to invest as a counter to their subsidized competition. Any dreams of subtle aid were dashed on June 21, 1970 with the catastrophic bankruptcy of the Penn Central (Transportation Company). With the proverbial lid now blown off the true railroad condition, it became apparent to all that the situation was dire; no minor injection of public funds could rectify three decades of decline.

Even before the wreck of the Penn Central, another experiment in socialization had started public investment in the Northeast Corridor. In the early 1960s, the cause of improving passenger railroading in the Northeast was championed by Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell. He had no small plans:

“The encouraging news which I bring you today is that there is a strong current of opinion within our federal government that we should go forward with the kind of development which the railroads themselves have not been able to do…there is now a school of opinion that if we are to promote such a development at all, we should not be satisfied with half-way measures limited to existing technology.” – Railway Age, October 12, 1964

In keeping with the spirit of the times, the Senator sought to spend the national largess instead of answering the very basic question, Why are the railroads, themselves, not able to make such investment?

By 1970, millions of public dollars had been invested in the Northeast Corridor. With Penn Central now a financial basket case, the Federal Government saw its investment in jeopardy. As early as 1969 there was consideration inside the Beltway as to some Federal involvement in passenger railroading. With the true situation of America’s railroads now making headlines, efforts intensified, and President Nixon signed what was then known as the Railpax legislation into law on October 30, 1970. The main reason for doing so was to forestall any more Penn Centrals around the country. Railpax was renamed Amtrak, and began direct operation of a much-rationalized passenger rail network on May 1, 1971. But with other forms of nationalized socialism taking hold around the country, a little more would not hurt, right?

The Year Is 2011

Amtrak has been a reality for 40 years. If you do not believe it, just ask it: http://www.amtrak40th.com/. Amtrak has published a book, a video, and has even commissioned a train to publicize its four decades’ longevity. It has been no small task, and much blood, sweat, and tears have been shed in the process. Even so, there are many larger questions, vastly larger than Amtrak itself, now looming on the horizon.

The seemingly inexhaustible largess of the latter half of the 20th century is gone. The age of avarice is over; the era of austerity now grips us. The question of “The National Debt,” and exactly who is responsible for it, is now a subject for debate in every corner store and boardroom. Ultimately, this is all a referendum on what role government plays and what size it needs to be in order to fulfill that role. Everything is out on the table. It is only a matter of time before nationalized passenger rail is under the microscope.

Meanwhile, America’s real railroads are no longer financial basket cases. Quite the contrary; railroads are the very model of healthy business. Again, this did not come about without much blood, sweat, and tears. The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 effectively ended a bloated regulatory bureaucracy that lasted about three decades beyond its actual usefulness. Moreover, through the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s, the railroads achieved a truce of sorts with their labor organizations, resulting in a drastically-rationalized workforce. Even so, railroads hold onto their traditional role of biding their time and never forgetting the path which brought them to where they are. Eminent veteran journalist Wes Vernon, when answering the question, Freight Rail: What Recession? notes:

“Highway congestion and skyrocketing gas prices strengthen the logic of converting highway-only freight traffic to intermodal. Of the 14 million domestic truckloads moving 550 miles or more each year within the eastern half of the United States, 35 percent-or 5.1 million-have shifted to the mix of rail and highway. That means about nine million truckloads are ripe for converting to intermodal…

“What that means, in practical terms, is that the trains will likely be shipping more consumer products, from appliances to toys. Heretofore, that had been largely the predominant province of the trucks, while the freight trains primarily focused on bulk commodities such as coal and grain.” - Railfan & Railroad, August 2011

The inherent efficiency of a railroad, the thermodynamic efficiency which propelled them to success from their genesis, is once again making them the transportation mode of the future. Unfortunately, such success always comes with its detractors. Special interest groups, specifically utilities reliant upon railroads for shipment of fuels, are actively looking to re-regulate railroads for their own financial relief. The utilities, who answer to multiple state or local agencies for the setting of consumer rates, believe it easier to mandate freight rates down from the Federal level rather than push politically-unpopular higher consumer rates at the local level. Such is the result of socialization of consumer electric rates. Thus far, the railroads have been able to resist such maneuvers to set them back to the era of needless burdensome regulation. But as the era of public cross-subsidization erodes, the search for new sources of subsidy will only intensify. The railroad re-regulation battle is barely out of round one.

Meanwhile, Amtrak touts the number of riders it attracts year over year. It is expected that Amtrak will carry over 30 million passengers in 2011. Gasoline has averaged $3.50 to over $4 per gallon so far this year; for all practical purposes, this is about double the inflation-corrected price of 1970. Even so, Amtrak is a socialized government animal which looks more for “rider-voters” than customers. Even during the days of Senator Pell it was appreciated that the high density population in the Northeast would make subsidizing passenger rail politically palatable. Consequently, Amtrak has concentrated more on achieving ever-higher numbers of rider-voters than it has on efficient business acumen.

Amtrak’s formula is very simple: High-density, short-haul/low-revenue corridor trains are touted as the solution for congestion; these attract the highest number of rider-voters/constituent-subsidy. The dilution of long-distance/high-revenue trains by lower-than-historical coach fares destroys any potential meaningful revenue, but is touted as the thread of a “national network.” If coach fares were raised in line with what it costs to operate them, and the number of high-revenue cars (sleeping cars) were increased, these trains would have a chance of at least breaking even. But sleepers carry fewer passengers than coaches, thus reducing the number of rider-voters. Also, if this happened, then these trains might be turned over to private operators, and Amtrak would lose its national constituency of rider-voters. Such is the mentality of a government agency, to wit: “We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!” Governor William J. Le Petomane – Blazing Saddles.

The Year Is 2020

It has been an arduous decade; transition from a guns and butter economy to a guns or butter economy is bittersweet, at best. The American experiment of socialization has ended. The United States was born in defiance of “taxation without representation.” The belief that taxes are a necessary evil defines the American ethos; they are evil nonetheless, and as such, should always be minimized. But the largess of the latter half of the 20th century was too tempting to pass by. When said largess ended, we attempted to fill the void by massive borrowing and hoping, praying for another round of national benevolence which never came. Now the bill has come due.

Life in 2020 is much like 1920, if not in form then certainly in function. The public does not travel as much or as far as during the “good times.” Due to expanding worldwide demand, the price of transportation fuel is now well over four times the rate of inflation. Efficiency is replacing convenience. The Interstate Highway System is being rationalized in the same manner as the railroads were during the 1970s and 1980s. Automobiles and airplanes are returning to their original positions, as toys for the genuinely rich. Just as the American public adapted to the era of cheap and abundant fuel, so they have adjusted to the era of expensive and scarce fuel seen during the early days of the Industrial Revolution. The technological salvation everyone was counting on did not pan out. Technology uses energy; it does not create energy.

It is no longer 1970. No one is trying to save the passenger train from the guilt of excess. It is no longer 2011. No one is trying to expand the passenger train solely on the basis of an imperious immediacy of political interest. Passenger rail has rebounded due to its inherent efficiency, and it is back in the hands of private industry. Thus, trains are running where they should be, and not where they cannot be justified.

Back to the Present

Saving the passenger train from the oblivion of low ridership is a battle that has been fought, won, and memorialized. Unfortunately, many passenger rail advocates are still fighting the battle to save the California Zephyr from the landscape of 1970. Yet even in today’s tight budget debates, no one of any authority is talking about discontinuing passenger trains. Quite to the contrary:

“It is time to deregulate America’s passenger rail system, and give intercity passenger rail the same opportunity for success that the freight rail and commercial truck industry have benefited from.

“We must look for more effective and innovative approaches to providing modern and efficient passenger rail service by focusing on projects that make sense, leveraging private sector investment, increasing competition, and opening the door to public-private partnerships.” – U.S. Representative Bill Shuster, Chairman of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee

It was not too long ago when the call to “reform Amtrak” could be heard around Washington. To those who prefer the status quo, the response was, “Define reform; what do you mean by reform?” Now the focus is shifting from reform toward an orderly dissolving of Amtrak.

For older or retired railroaders, Amtrak’s only reason for existence is an “irrational love of trains that would have us run almost empty trains over long distances simply so a foamer can stand out there and watch ‘em.” Perhaps such reasoning was justified four decades ago. Today it is well documented that those trains, especially those long distance trains, run full. They are sold out weeks before departure. This has not gone unnoticed by the private sector; higher demand means higher revenue potential. Higher revenue should translate into profitability or at the very least break-even. Amtrak, however, as a political animal focuses on “rider-voters” rather than passenger miles. Consequently, it has become the greatest of ironies that the passenger train, which was purported to be saved by Amtrak, now has to be saved from Amtrak.

Also, Amtrak has become an important conduit for tax dollars to flow into the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) pension system (of which all railroaders are members) instead of Social Security. Many of those currently employed by the railroads, as well as the retirees, fear that if Amtrak is fundamentally changed then an adverse effect on railroad retirement will occur. What is not realized is that any new passenger railroad venture established, which may augment or replace Amtrak service, will also have to be under the RRB; eventually making the system stronger, not weaker. There is also the possibility Congress may find another funding conduit for the RRB, other than through in-and-out entries in Amtrak’s corporate checkbook.

No, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The “good roads” crusades of the 1920s and Interstate Highway program of the 1950s happened after forgetting the lessons of the National Road debacle during the first half of the early 19th century. Now the lessons of railroad regulation/deregulation have been forgotten by many, and the results are negative.

What really is our rail future? It is not ours to see. But whatever happens, we will be writing about it.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, September 15, 2011

To Hybrid or not to Hybrid (buses that is)

Fresh off the assembly lineImage by paulkimo90 via Flickr
Hybrid buses...some transit companies have gone crazy having all new buses be hybrids while others such as TriMet in Portland and the Utah Transit Authority have been more conservative when it comes to buying hybrid buses. Back in 2002 TriMet received two New Flyer Hybrids while UTA received three of the same type of buses.

After evaluating TriMet made the decision not to order any new hybrids until this year because they did not see enough savings to justify the initial high costs of the buses. However, last year UTA received 10 Gillig Advantage BRT hybrid's to go along with a purchase of new regular diesels, and this year TriMet has decided to see how much the changes in hybrid technology in the last decade has changed and ordered 4 hybrids also from Gillig to evaluate their performance.

Some would argue that Hybrids use less fuel so transit agencies should by them. Of course life is a little more complicated than that. In fact the experience with hybrids have been a mixed bag largely because how well they save on diesel depends of the type of service they are used on.

New York is probably one of the biggest users of hybrid buses. In an environment like crowed New York streets were many of the buses are sitting in traffic or traveling at low speeds the hybrid technology pays off. However, in Seattle the opposite situation exists. Seattle purchased their hybrids to travel in their bus tunnel when it became a joint operation with Sound Transit Light Rail. However, once the buses leave the tunnel a number of them become express routes across the Seattle area. Because they spend a majority of their time travel at higher speeds Metro does not see the advantages of Hybrid technology.

Here is a article from Seattle about the performance of their hybrids from a few years ago:

Hybrid Buses Fuel economy promises didn't materialize 

Some later numbers may show some better performance from diesels including maintenance cost however lets look at some important numbers:

Currently Hybrid buses cost substantially more than standard diesel buses. For example TriMet's new hybrids cost approximately $650,000 while the new diesels that TriMet ordered this year coast about $400,000. So lets look at some examples to show what would make this purchase justify itself.

As you can see above the difference in price between the regular bus and the hybrid bus is $250,000. Lets say a standard bus gets 4 miles per gallon and a hybrid averages 5 miles per gallon. That means that you would save one mile per gallon. For the sake of this example and to make the numbers easier lets say that the transit agency will put 500,000 miles on it during its life at the agency. Also lets say that the average price of diesel during the life of the bus is $3.00 per gallon to keep the numbers easier. With this example the agency would spend $375,000 on fuel for a diesel bus and $300,000 for the hybrid.

The $75,000 savings does not justify the initial cost of they hybrid. In this example it is virtually impossible for the Hybrid to justify its initial cost. There is other factors that need to be considered beyond just fuel cost such as maintenance and resell value but that would most likely go in favor of diesel for maintenance and resell value is so small it is irrelevant anyway.

When making decisions on what type of bus to by we need to look at hard numbers and not just try to feel good. But there is also something to be said for going beyond the bean counter numbers. Hybrid buses can offer other benefits that cannot be looked at on a balance sheet such as quieter operations and points on the political and public relations front.

On a profit and loss statement the hybrids may not add up, other factors may be in their favor but a transit agency needs to look at the the life of the vehicle and whether the substantial cost will pay off in the long run.
Enhanced by Zemanta