Though this story is out of St. Louis, this couple could very well be in any city of smaller community in Ohio. Why should we fight for more and better transit & rail?  Read on:

 

Bus route closing devastates disabled couple

By John King

CNN Chief National Correspondent

 

BALLWIN, Missouri (CNN) -- For Stuart and Dianne Falk, it is a two-bus, 45-minute trip into downtown St. Louis to head to the gym and to volunteer at a theater group.

 

And it is a lifeline that ends Friday...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/st.louis.no.bus/index.html

Insightful article, Noozer.  We here at Urban Ohio usually talk about public transit being an alternative to privately-owned cars, or sometimes even eliminating the need for cars in some cases.  But this article illustrates that some people have no alternative to public transportation!

"Dooley also said mass transit cutbacks make it harder to attract new businesses"

 

-- Bingo, bango!  Would somebody please forward this article to those anti-transit yayhoos at Crain's as well as those supposedly pro-business Republicans who, like Crain's, are badmouthing such transit proposals as Amtrak's 3-Cs rail plan, and are silent, even pulling against, increased funding to our local transit agencies like Cleveland's RTA?... Not to pick on Detroit, but if there was ever a poster-city that demonstrates the urban devastation and dysfunction wrought by the failure to develop quality mass transit, Detroit is it.

 

Great find, noozer. 

This article also discusses the recent defeat of Issue 9 in Cincinnati.

 

 

Voters on Nov. 3 Say ‘Yes’ to Transit Ballot Initiatives

Passenger Transport Magazine

 

Nationwide, there were seven public transit-related ballot initiatives for voters’ consideration on Nov. 3—fewer than in previous years. Of these measures, four pro-transit ones passed, and one anti-transit measure was defeated. Taking into account two transit-related initiatives that passed earlier in the year, transit’s success rate for 2009 is 70 percent, with one more election to come next month in Oklahoma City, OK.

 

“These votes for public transportation speak loud and clear: the public wants more public transportation service and is willing to pay for it,” said APTA President William Millar. “At a time when unemployment is high and economic uncertainty is foremost in people’s minds, you might not expect people to tax themselves for better public transit services. The fact that a majority of transit- related ballot initiatives passed means that people recognize the value of public transportation.”

 

More at:

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/aptapt/issues/2009-11-09/1.html

November 30, 2009

Editorial

The New York Times

Commuters Beware

 

The train wreck last summer that killed nine commuters and injured 80 in the nation’s capital laid bare a deadly paradox: the safety failures at the heart of the collision occurred on a subway track devoid of the strong federal crashworthiness standards in place on Amtrak’s immediately adjacent railroad line. Regional systems of light-rail and subways are not subject to the federal government’s more stringent safety requirements.

 

The Obama administration wisely wants to end this disjunction by proposing that Congress extend federal standards to subway and light-rail lines now haphazardly regulated in more than two dozen city and regional systems. The safety rules and monitoring are shockingly toothless in too many jurisdictions, with the systems averaging less than one overworked safety worker.

 

Full editorial at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30mon2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Great... Rather than improving signaling systems and safety procedures to prevent future crashes, look for the feds will simply mandate that transit vehicles be turned into Sherman tanks that are twice as heavy, twice as expensive to build, and cause twice the wear and tear on infrastructure.

It is actually a federal mandate for all railroads to institute Positive Train Control signal systems on all rail corridors where passenger & freight co-exist.  I would imagine PTC mandates will be extended toward transit systems as well.

 

But I hear you on turning rail vehicles into "Sherman Tanks".  That's what happened with Amtrak's Acela train sets and that increased weight has already caused one major overhaul of all of the trainsets.

Are they trying to make everything in this country oversize and overweight?

    "The Obama administration wisely wants to end this disjunction by proposing that Congress extend federal standards to subway and light-rail lines now haphazardly regulated in more than two dozen city and regional systems."

 

    Where does Congress derive the power to do this? Can you find it in the Constitution?

 

    Traditionally, Congress has made laws regulating the railroads, including laws related to safety, under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. However, the federal laws were limited to railroads that crossed state lines, or to railroads that interchanged with railroads that crossed state lines. Railroads that did not cross state lines were not regulated, and if the feds tried to impose laws on them, the lawyers of the railroad would show up in court and win based on the limited powers of congress.

 

    Most subways and regional systems do not cross state lines.

 

    Just sayin'  :-)

 

   

^ It would apply to D.C. Metro, being in two states and the District.

Metro-North commuter rail covers New York and Connecticut.  NJ Transit goes into both NYC and Philly....

Then for all the systems that don't operate across state lines you enact a sister law that puts strings on Federal transit infrastructure dollars.

Crossing state lines has nothing to do with it; it has to do with transit systems interoperating with larger and heavier trains on mainline tracks. If a transit system does not share tracks with mainline trains, then it is usually exempt from FRA crashworthiness standards.

 

Metro North and NJ Transit are commuter rail systems that are already FRA-compliant because they operate on mainline tracks with freight and passenger trains. Not to be confused with transit systems like the Washington Metro and NYC Subway that are physically isolated from heavier train traffic. (Note that operating alongside a mainline railroad, separated only by a fence, is not the same thing as sharing tracks.)

 

There is a small handful of transit systems such as PATH and the NJ Transit River Line that occupy sort of a gray area (either by having to meet FRA regs, or by some sort of time-sharing agreement), but those are a fairly small minority.

December 2, 2009

 

Industry News

APTA: Public transit projects support, create jobs

Metro magazine

 

On Wednesday, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) called on Congress to invest at least $15 billion in public transportation to support and create hundreds of thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy........

 

......According to the "Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment," a report completed by the Economic Development Research Group this fall, these benefits add up to the fact that for every $1 invested in public transportation, an average of $4 is generated in economic returns. Roughly $3.6 billion of business sales and nearly $500 million in federal, state and local tax revenues are also generated.

 

Full story at: http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2009/12/APTA-Public-transit-projects-support-create-jobs.aspx

Right, Noozer... JOBS!!    See below: 

 

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on defense: 8,555

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on health care: 10,779

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on education: 17,687

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on mass transit: 19,795

 

 

Source:

“The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities,” Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Dept of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, October 2007.  http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf

 

 

If these Congress folk, who year after year force the Pentagon to buy planes and other equipment that they don't need and don't request, would instead put the money in mass transit in their states, they would create far more jobs than they think they are saving by their wasteful spending. 

APTA charts individual savings from public transit use   

Railwayage.com

 

The American Public Transportation Association Tuesday said public transit users “can save on average $9,242 annually based on the January 11, 2010 national average gas price and the national unreserved monthly parking rate.”

 

APTA noted the computation factored in that “the average cost per gallon of gas was $1.79 which is nearly $1 less than the current price of gas at $2.75 per gallon. This increase in cost equates to an additional $600 in savings per year for transit commuters as compared to last year’s savings amount at this same time.”

 

APTA said “The Transit Savings Report,” which it releases monthly, calculates the average annual and monthly savings for public transit users.  The report examines how an individual in a two-person household can save money by taking public transportation and living with one less car.

 

Cleveland BTW, ranks 11th nationally in savings:

 

11  Cleveland                $803/month          $9,639/year

 

Full story at:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/apta-charts-individual-savings-from-public-transit-use.html

More work needs to be done in getting the working class to support public transport.  For someone making $20 - 30k a good public transport system can save their arse.

Here's an answer for those critics who say rail & transit ought turn a profit.  Railway Age advances the notion that private transit is simply not feasible in the U.S. due to economic fluctuations, as shown by the declaration of bankruptcy of the not-for-profit Las Vegas Monorail Company.

 

 

Las Vegas monorail company files for bankruptcy   

 

The Las Vegas Monorail Co., though formed as a not-for-profit company, filed Wednesday with federal bankruptcy court due to falling ridership, attributed to the economic recession. The company oversees the roughly 4-mile elevated service connecting hotels on the Las Vegas Strip withthe Convention Center.

 

Since the overwhelming majority of North American public transit operations rely on some form of government support, the bankruptcy may be a telling indicator of how "private-sector" options, often advanced by those opposed to government support for rail and public transit, may nonetheless be vulnerable to fluctuations in economic conditions.

 

Full story at:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/las-vegas-monorail-company-files-for-bankruptcy.html

Nation needs to ramp up transit funding, Rep. Nadler says

 

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is trying to spearhead efforts to increase transit funding in the fiscal-year 2011 Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill. He recently joined 66 colleagues in sending a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting $14.9 billion in funding for federal transit programs, which would represent a significant boost from the $10.8 billion requested in President Obama’s FY2011 budget.

 

Public transportation agencies are finding it difficult to keep up with ridership demand and, instead, are proposing fare hikes, service reductions and job cuts, said Nadler in a prepared statement.

 

Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=22897

(Also posted this on the Peak Oil thread)

 

America and big oil: We wish we knew how to quit you

Posted by Jon Talton

for The Seattle Times

 

On Tuesday, President Obama told the nation, "the tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny." Today he's in Columbus touting federal stimulus money going to...a road project.

 

Last year alone, the stim put more than $100 billion into highways and the auto industry. This as transit systems around the nation were suffering and cutting service, Amtrak remained a hostage to politics, and high-speed rail continued to be a dream to study -- even as our competitors already have it and are building more. It's been shown that road projects don't ease unemployment. It's not even true that "roads pay for themselves," even without factoring in the unfunded externalities such as the cost of sprawl, pollution and environmental damage.

 

Full op-ed at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundeconomywithjontalton/2012150660_america_and_big_oil_we_wish_we.html?syndication=rss

The real cost of ignoring public transportationRobert Magyar

Philadelphia Energy Examiner

 

For most Americans, keeping a daily eye on the price of a gallon of gasoline tells them how much they are paying to commute to work as they go about their daily business. But several large public transportation advocacy groups have calculated the real cost of commuting by car and the numbers are shockingly high on an annual basis.

 

Here is a fairly typical example of commuting to work drives for many professionals here in Bucks County Pennsylvania.

 

• A person has a 80 mile roundtrip daily commute from central Bucks PA to greater Philadelphia

• Average income on or about $90,000.00 per year

• Commuting 5 days a week and working on or about 60 hours a week

• A gasoline costs $3.50 a gallon

• Driving a large SUV in stop and go commuter traffic averaging 13 miles per gallon

• Monthly fuel costs are $947.69

• Monthly car payment or lease plus monthly auto wear and tear (tires, brakes, engine service, etc.) $756.80

• PA Turnpike tolls at $4.00 per day roundtrip totaling $88.00

• Total monthly costs are $1,792.49

 

Read more at: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-real-cost-of-ignoring-public-transportation

The example above of the guy making $90,000 per year works out to be 24% of income spent on driving. I read another article that says that the typical percentage of income spent on transportation is about 20%, regardless of income.

 

 

 

 

^So because he's 4% over, it must be okay then?

 

I wonder how long that commute is? How valuable is that persons time spent driving that commute everyday? How happy is that person? How healthy? These are the external non-monetary costs to driving that most people forget.

 

Using the 20% rule, it can be calculated that people who make less than about $4000 a year cannot afford any transportation at all, not even the bus. Somewhere around the $20,000 mark allows people to drive. Above that, drivers just spend more on more expensive cars or more miles.  Super rich people have their own jets.

 

A lot of forumers talk about making transit that attracts the "choice" riders, as opposed to the poor. The guy making $90,000 per year would be a 'choice" rider: he can definitely afford to drive. He could save about $20,000 per year by riding the bus instead of driving. Obviously, he chooses to drive instead of taking the bus. It must be really important to him to be able to drive, because he spends so much on it.

 

No one is making a judgement on whether or not it is "okay" to drive.

You're right, they're making the judgement on whether or not is 'ok' to take the bus/subway/train.

 

It probably has nothing to do with it being important to him. He hasn't consciously made that choice - he has, instead, most likely been indoctrinated in to that viewpoint by the predominant societal expectations of what is normal.

Here's a nice info-graphic.....

 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/great_infographic_on_benefits.html#.UAhSx43tV2M.email

Bloomberg opinon: U.S. Taxpayers Are Gouged on Mass Transit Costs

 

If the first segment of Manhattan’s Second Avenue subway opens on schedule in 2016, New Yorkers will be reminded that it was once “the line that time forgot” -- a project more than 75 years in the making, with no end in sight. It should be remembered for another failing as well: It will be one of the most expensive subways in the world.

 

Tunneling in any dense urban environment is an expensive proposition, but the $5 billion price tag for just the first two miles of the Second Avenue subway cannot be explained by engineering difficulties. The segment runs mainly beneath a single broad avenue, unimpeded by rivers, super-tall skyscraper foundations or other subway lines.

 

American taxpayers will shell out many times what their counterparts in developed cities in Europe and Asia would pay. In the case of the Second Avenue line and other new rail infrastructure in New York City, they may have to pay five times as much.

 

Amtrak is just as bad. Its $151 billion master plan for basic high-speed rail service in the Northeast corridor is more expensive than Japan’s planned magnetic levitating train line between Tokyo and Osaka, most of which is to be buried deep underground, with tunnels through the Japan Alps and beneath its densest cities.

 

The numbers for California’s proposed high-speed rail system are similarly shocking.

 

California Bloat

I don't think there's any denying that New York's union rules contribute massively to capital and operations costs.  However, at the very least the various commuter rail agencies and PATH means they can't completely shut down the city with a strike, unlike in France and elsewhere where everything is integrated under just one labor union. 

Might be time for states to start non profit businesses in transportation or higher 10,000+ Chinese to build our systems in return of reducing our debt to them.

Spains Model

Melis also warned against consultants who consultant with consultants and advisers who advise advisers, something American planners would do well to learn. He said he didnt hire any large firm of consulting engineers as general project managers for his Metro de Madrid expansions, and that designers werent allowed to interfere with, or bid for, their own construction contracts.

 

Not so in the U.S. Parsons Brinckerhoff, perhaps the biggest name in the nations transit construction industry, is both the lead-design contractor and project manager for Californias planned high-speed rail line, and the company stands a good chance of winning construction contracts for its own designs. As if that conflict of interest wasnt bad enough, the California High-Speed Rail Authoritys new CEO, Jeff Morales, arrived at the agency after a stint as senior vice present at Parsons Brinckerhoff, where he worked on the authoritys business plan.

 

Parsons Brinckerhoff, like all the other multinational contractors and construction companies that win bloated contracts in the U.S., can do good work. Its rail projects for Hong Kongs Mass Transit Railway were built at a reasonable cost, and its participation in Turkeys Marmaray rail tunnel across the Bosporus in Istanbul shows that it can deliver affordable results in forbidding terrain. But absent the right incentives and oversight, even the best private companies will resort to rent seeking.

 

Larry Littlefield, who has worked in logistics and as a budget analyst at New York City Transit, also suggests the U.S. legal system is an obstacle to designing and building affordable infrastructure. (The U.K. and India share a common-law legal heritage with the U.S. that is heavy on judicial review, and they also have trouble controlling costs.)

 

New York government agencies are saddled by procurement rules dating back generations, Littlefield says, when corruption in infrastructure projects was endemic. Reformers demanded objective and easily policeable standards, which often meant lowest-price bidding rules. Bidders compete mostly on price, not quality.

 

in econmic term there are barrier to entry that prevent competition on transit projects. 

 

Futhermore if PB can secure the contract to do the orginal AA study. I.E. the blue line extension. they can price it, and then bid on the design and constrution contracts as well.  becuas they can control the orignal design and they have every incentive to over design (gold platting).

 

I would like to see the rules forbiding the Transit agency from taking design and AA inhouse and trun RTA into a "general contractor" on thier own project, by splintg the contracts out they are more leikely to better control the costs of the project, plus being non profit helps elminate a layer of management.

 

remember they collect a percentage of overall project costs, creaitn incenvites o drive those costs up, escially if they control the original design process.

 

outsourcing is the reason costs are so high, not unions. 

Might be time for states to start non profit businesses in transportation or higher 10,000+ Chinese to build our systems in return of reducing our debt to them.

 

Immigration laws are set by federal policy. Did you know that before about 1905, immigration was wide open? At that time, there was opposition to bringing Chinese to this country, because they supposedly increased the supply of labor and forced wages down. So, we wound up with immigration quotas.

 

So no, states cannot hire Chinese to build infrastructure unless they do it within the confines of the federal law.

 

But we CAN import manufactured goods from China. Can you imagine what American cities might look like if instead of manufacturing things in China and shipping goods to the U.S.A., the Chinese would have instead just moved here and worked in factories here?

 

You just can't ship infrastructure like you can ship manufactured goods, but just look at the potential!

Might be time for states to start non profit businesses in transportation or higher 10,000+ Chinese to build our systems in return of reducing our debt to them.

 

Immigration laws are set by federal policy. Did you know that before about 1905, immigration was wide open? At that time, there was opposition to bringing Chinese to this country, because they supposedly increased the supply of labor and forced wages down. So, we wound up with immigration quotas.

 

So no, states cannot hire Chinese to build infrastructure unless they do it within the confines of the federal law.

 

But we CAN import manufactured goods from China. Can you imagine what American cities might look like if instead of manufacturing things in China and shipping goods to the U.S.A., the Chinese would have instead just moved here and worked in factories here?

 

You just can't ship infrastructure like you can ship manufactured goods, but just look at the potential!

 

I will say it again.

 

labor cost are irrelevant.

the costs are added duing the design phase, when engineering descions are being made consultant. 

 

Avoid “Gold Plating”     

Designers should not attempt to exceed requirements as this usually adds to development time, verification effort and manufacturing costs. It is often referred to as gold plating or feature creep.

 

it is when a you spec a double track extension for an incremental light rail extension.

 

it like buying  car with all the bells and whistles, and the rust proofing package, extended waranty, and the theft protection package when you only drive 2 miles a day and live in arizona.  the same thing happens in military procurment.

 

 

The consultants most certainly add in lots of extra goodies that aren't needed -- except for their construction contractor and materials buddies.

 

 

I will say it again.

 

labor cost are irrelevant.

the costs are added during the design phase, when engineering decisions are being made consultant. 

 

really, how do you suppose things get built?

I have a hard time dismissing labor costs when there has been a decades-old effort, worldwide, to build driverless transit lines.  Several are in operation around the world, including a new one in Vancouver.  For new lines that must be driven by a human being, stations are often unstaffed. 

 

I remember one particular subway station in Paris that had no fewer than four people selling tickets at just one entrance.  While fewer surely staffed the station at night and on the weekends, Paris is no doubt spending over $1 million annually over-staffing each of its 100+ subway station. 

I have a hard time dismissing labor costs when there has been a decades-old effort, worldwide, to build driverless transit lines.  Several are in operation around the world, including a new one in Vancouver.  For new lines that must be driven by a human being, stations are often unstaffed. 

 

I remember one particular subway station in Paris that had no fewer than four people selling tickets at just one entrance.  While fewer surely staffed the station at night and on the weekends, Paris is no doubt spending over $1 million annually over-staffing each of its 100+ subway station. 

 

we are talking about construction costs not costs for operation.

 

it is impossible to install a driverless train system if the construction costs are too great to make it feasible.

I don't believe that the enormously increased cost of building a rail network or other transportation system in the United States is due to the wages of construction workers. Countries in Western Europe most likely pay construction workers more than we do in the US (and we are the only country that doesn't require days off for employees. France requires 20 days of vacation a year if you work 39+ hours/week; UK requires 28 days; Japan requires 10-20 days depending on seniority).

 

I don't have facts to back up my opinion of construction costs, but if someone does have numbers about construction worker salaries/number of workers on a job site by country that would be interesting to see.

I don't believe that the enormously increased cost of building a rail network or other transportation system in the United States is due to the wages of construction workers. Countries in Western Europe most likely pay construction workers more than we do in the US (and we are the only country that doesn't require days off for employees. France requires 20 days of vacation a year if you work 39+ hours/week; UK requires 28 days; Japan requires 10-20 days depending on seniority).

 

I don't have facts to back up my opinion of construction costs, but if someone does have numbers about construction worker salaries/number of workers on a job site by country that would be interesting to see.

 

The process that often is dictated by law remove the agency from the design of the project

 

Definition of 'Barriers To Entry'

The existence of high start-up costs or other obstacles that prevent new competitors from easily entering an industry or area of business. Barriers to entry benefit existing companies already operating in an industry because they protect an established company's revenues and profits from being whittled away by new competitors.

 

• the complexity of the government funding process, I.E. seeking government funds for transit projects, means that a outside consultant must be hired to wade through the maze of regulations, needed to secure federal funds for transit project.  there are only a few players in this market.
   
  
• 
  regulations in this country Forbid the awarding of a contract based upon any thing but price, on large complex projects like subways, large aerial structures, transit stations, the project is too complex for a fixed price bid ends up being an open-ended contracts.  on projects like these lowest bid often is less important than the contractor's experience on similar projects, and their ability to fish their projects on time.
   
  
• 
  regulations have prevented transit agencies from developing a robust in-house design and engineering needed to do anything but the most basic projects.  by replacing in-house staff with contractor you lose the most basic form of cost control during the design phase and construction phases.
   
  

 

how Spain does their transit projects.

 

The selection of the contractors was undertaken with the greatest care, and included consideration of the soft ground tunnelling experience of the engineers and technicians proposed for the works. Of especial importance was the selection of the person to be in charge of tunnel construction. A well-executed tunnelling project is a work of art, and the Client was prepared to spend the necessary time in choosing the artist. In the evaluation of the tenders, cost consideration amounted only to 30% of the evaluation. Some 20% was allocated to the evaluation of project time, and the remaining 50% was allocated after an evaluation of the technical merits of the proposals, and of staff considerations.

Disputes Avoidance

A system was needed to enable the Client to: foresee problems during tunnelling activities; make a timely study of the most appropriate solution; and agree the solution economically with the contractor concerned.  The objective was to avoid disputes, and to always reach agreements before the problems become unmanageable.

 

No large firm of consulting engineers was hired as general project managers. It is the author’s opinion that experience in other cities and countries has shown that such an approach does not actually produce savings in time and cost. The project management of the civil engineering and architectural elements was carried out by just three Chief Engineers, and six further engineers, all of whom were direct employees of the Madrid Regional Government.  Electrical and mechanical installations have been carried out by this group, together with other Madrid Metro staff. Profs J MRodriguez and C Oteo were the geotechnical experts on site. Each one of the fourteen separate civils contracts had another two contracts involving specialist consultants, one for technical assistance, and the other for quality control.

 

The first thing I would do is to decouple  the design from the construction contracts, and offer the option for transit agencies to be general project managers.  I would forbid the project designer from being awarded construction contracts, and place a member of the agency in between the designer and the builder. to prevent collusion. Finally, place the awarding of the contract on factors other than fixed cost.

 

 

I don't believe that the enormously increased cost of building a rail network or other transportation system in the United States is due to the wages of construction workers.

 

It's a combination of many things, but certainly wages of construction workers play a part.

 

In Hamilton County, Ohio, the average salary for all workers is around $35,000 per year. In Thailand, for example, the average salary is equivalent to about $2000 per year. That is a HUGE difference, and the reason why it is more cost effective to manufacture things in Thailand and ship them to the United States, even including the cost of shipping, instead of manufacturing them in Ohio.

 

 

^Yes, but how do you explain cost of mass transit construction in the US compared to places like Japan, France, UK, etc? Cincinnati is bigger than every city in Thailand except Bangkok. Most of Thailand is rural, and incomes aren't very high there since the cost of living isn't very high.

In Hamilton County, Ohio, the average salary for all workers is around $35,000 per year. In Thailand, for example, the average salary is equivalent to about $2000 per year. That is a HUGE difference, and the reason why it is more cost effective to manufacture things in Thailand and ship them to the United States, even including the cost of shipping, instead of manufacturing them in Ohio.

 

Slightly off-topic, but if you want to encourage "American jobs", you have to pay the price by paying American-level wages. I get the feeling that a lot of the people who champion "Made in America" products turn around and do most of their shopping at Walmart where virtually nothing is made in America.

 

There was also a book that came out a few years ago -- I never got around to reading it but I heard an interview with the author -- that discussed how rising fuel costs would return much of the manufacturing back to the U.S. (and other countries closer than China). It discussed what types of manufacturing would be moved back as the price of oil hit various levels.

I don't believe that the enormously increased cost of building a rail network or other transportation system in the United States is due to the wages of construction workers.

 

It's a combination of many things, but certainly wages of construction workers play a part.

 

In Hamilton County, Ohio, the average salary for all workers is around $35,000 per year. In Thailand, for example, the average salary is equivalent to about $2000 per year. That is a HUGE difference, and the reason why it is more cost effective to manufacture things in Thailand and ship them to the United States, even including the cost of shipping, instead of manufacturing them in Ohio.

 

Workers in developed countries are better trained and far more productive than their poorer rivals.

 

Because of our exceedingly superior infrastructure system our costs for shipping anything is far less expensive than the 3rd world, also consider that a lot of the construction materials will have to be shipped from developed countries to the 3rd world.

 

Labor costs in construction are a small part of overall costs because things are become more and more automated, watch a road construction crew redo an interstate notice how the machines do most of the work. the use of pre-fabricated components and the use of more powerful equipment to lift larger and larger pre-fab components

 

All and all the costs per mile of tunneling in the 3rd world is on par with that in the 1st world, after all the costs involved are taken into account.

 

Imagine you can design a project and bid on that projects and then bid on the contract form that project, understand for every level of the the construction there is a percentage to be made of the overall project budget.

 

so by making a 30 billion dollar HSR cost 68 billion dollars, the winner of the general construction project that nets a 4% commission  increases from 1.2 billion to 2.72 billion. by over-designing a project you can greatly increase the profits of the general contractor on that project.  of course if the project designer and the general contractor are the same company what incentive is there to not design in more cost?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Hamilton County, Ohio, the average salary for all workers is around $35,000 per year. In Thailand, for example, the average salary is equivalent to about $2000 per year. That is a HUGE difference, and the reason why it is more cost effective to manufacture things in Thailand and ship them to the United States, even including the cost of shipping, instead of manufacturing them in Ohio.

 

Slightly off-topic, but if you want to encourage "American jobs", you have to pay the price by paying American-level wages. I get the feeling that a lot of the people who champion "Made in America" products turn around and do most of their shopping at Walmart where virtually nothing is made in America.

 

There was also a book that came out a few years ago -- I never got around to reading it but I heard an interview with the author -- that discussed how rising fuel costs would return much of the manufacturing back to the U.S. (and other countries closer than China). It discussed what types of manufacturing would be moved back as the price of oil hit various levels.

 

You are missing the point

 

this not about labor this is about Gold plating and mission Creep in the design of transit projects.

 

 

Exactly, there are numerous items add to rail transit projects not because they are the minimum needed, but because they are the maximum needed to cover-your-ass or, worse, to benefit engineering firms or construction contractor friends. This occurs among the consulting firms advising the transit agencies, or the agencies themselves. Many transit agencies employ former consulting firm employees, or they leave to join consulting firms. I have to admit, I understand the best/brightest transit agency construction managers leaving the public sector transit agencies for better pay at the private-sector consulting firms. But sometimes that door opens the other way too, such as Mike Schipper, GCRTA's deputy general manager of engineering & project management, who previously worked at HNTB Corp.

 

So when a single-track rail line with passing sidings will do just fine, they end up trying to get a double-tracked rail line  built that costs far more and may not meet FTA cost-effectiveness criteria and thus, doesn't get built. That's the case with the Blue Line extension to Highland Hills.

 

Or overhead catenary wires are supported by expensive steel I-beams when a wooden telephone pole would suffice.

 

Or newly built rail cars are urged by consultants, when rebuilt equipment would do the job just fine for a decade and cost maybe one-third the expense of new equipment. Yet rebuilt equipment is often not even mentioned by consultants.

 

That's what I'm talking about, and I think that's what biker16 is talking about.

Is there any national standards for mass transit construction; analogous to AASHTO's "Green Book" (Which is not legislated nationally, but is the de facto standards for highway construction used by all state DOT's)?

Yes, there are engineering and design standards. The most extensive and restrictive design standards are for stations and vehicles, and are dictated by the FTA's office of Civil Rights in the spirit of ADA. They include things like level boarding, signage, dimensions of pedestrian/wheelchair pathways through platforms/vehicles, etc. There are other standards for things like vertical and lateral clearance of vehicles along rights of way, curvature, etc. But I do not believe there are operational standards such as whether single track or double track should be used, or what type of building materials are selected. Those tend to be at the discretion of the project sponsor (typically the transit agency).

Is there any national standards for mass transit construction; analogous to AASHTO's "Green Book" (Which is not legislated nationally, but is the de facto standards for highway construction used by all state DOT's)?

 

It is coming. but generally the combinaion very few consturtion projects being built in north america at one time, and the procument of speciality roling stock and has led out of control costs.  on traist projects.  when the averge trasit agency only buys 50-60  trains every 30-45 years it is hard to keep costs down plus the "buy american" provision ccause the price to jump. becuase it reduces competition.    the most basic Thing that can be done is to piggy back on other tranist agencies buys and take an off the shelf product, which is why the Flexity LRT train in toronto are a good canidate to replace our rail fleet in Cleveland and why Tuscon's Streetcars are identical to Portland's streetcar. 

 

http://www.aptastandards.com/portals/0/1GeneralFiles/FTA.pdf

 

With cleveland rail system it is very much one of a kind not just in north America but in the World.  600 VDC overhead cantenary system for a heavy Rail system.

 

The standard for modern LRT is 750 VDC, and few heavy rail systems use a low voltage OCS system, if they use 600VDC it is through a 3rd rail, becuase the current requirements for heavy rail are hard on an OCS at such low voltages, (the cross section of wire causes more resistance than a rail) 

 

Yes, there are engineering and design standards. The most extensive and restrictive design standards are for stations and vehicles, and are dictated by the FTA's office of Civil Rights in the spirit of ADA. They include things like level boarding, signage, dimensions of pedestrian/wheelchair pathways through platforms/vehicles, etc. There are other standards for things like vertical and lateral clearance of vehicles along rights of way, curvature, etc. But I do not believe there are operational standards such as whether single track or double track should be used, or what type of building materials are selected. Those tend to be at the discretion of the project sponsor (typically the transit agency).

 

Information asymmetry means that I know more than you so shut up.

Information asymmetry means that I know more than you so shut up.

 

Why fight? Because my parents, like the writer's parents, are increasingly dependent on me and my sister for mobility. Yet they do not want to impose on us, so they stay home and isolated, sometimes for weeks until they run out of food and must finally call for help. Unfortunately they live in sprawling, drive-or-die suburbs! So when I get to be their age, what will my future mobility be?

__________

 

Peter Lehner’s Blog

Stranded Seniors Need Public Transportation

Posted November 26, 2012 in Living Sustainably

 

My parents are among the 8 million senior citizens in this country who are stranded by a lack of public transportation. If we want to spend time together over the holidays, I, or one of my daughters, will drive hundreds of miles to pick them up and drop them back home again. At least my parents have this option, imperfect as it is--many seniors do not.

 

Our car-dependent society poses a real threat to the health and well-being of millions of senior citizens today. Nearly 80 percent of our seniors live in car-dependent suburban and rural communities, according to a 2003 Brookings Institution study.  Half our non-driving seniors stay home on any given day because they have no public transit options. Non-driving seniors make fewer trips to the doctor, fewer visits to friends and family, and fewer trips to stores and restaurants, according to a 2004 study. Seniors who stop driving show more symptoms of depression and are less active outside the home.

 

By 2030, according to government projections, our 65-and-older population will more than double from 2000 levels to 72 million. (And by 2030, I'll be part of this demographic, too.) This generation has had a profound influence on how this country moves: they spawned the two-car family, the suburban exodus, and the traffic gridlock that followed. As boomers age, their travel patterns will change, and they could once again reshape how America gets around.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/stranded_seniors_need_public_t.html

Very good read on the benefits of a robust, diverse transportation system that invests heavily in moving people and not just cars. 

 

Portland planners take cars into account -- and a lot more

By Guest Columnist

on November 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM, updated November 24, 2012 at 9:05 AM

By Chris Smith and Randy Miller

 

Portland's approach to land use and transportation planning for the past 40 years has been about creating affordable, accessible choice and ensuring that cars are not the only option for getting around. Portlanders have been clear in their support for this approach, and the Metro travel behavior survey data shows this is working; vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have declined by 26 percent per household since 1994.

 

While the region has experienced a 4 percent decline in auto trips, the central city has seen an 18 percent decline in car trips and inner neighborhood trips have dropped by 13 percent. We need to continue our efforts to provide the rest of Portland the same quality and variety of options as the central city.

 

Why?

 

First, this is an issue of equity. Cars are expensive to own, insure, maintain and drive. Not all Portlanders can afford to own, much less drive, a car. A strategy focused solely on autos marginalizes the most vulnerable people in our community.

 

Read more at:  http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/11/portland_planners_take_cars_in.html#incart_river